:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm younger than you and I get them all the time......so I'm told ? I don't seem to remember ? :?
I'm younger than you and I get them all the time......so I'm told ? I don't seem to remember ? :?
View on low carbing.(part two)
- Thread starter NickW
- Start Date
Hi Ali,
I can't remember exactly but I think it's something you have once you've past the age of twenty-one! :lol:
John
I can't remember exactly but I think it's something you have once you've past the age of twenty-one! :lol:
John
AliB
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 334
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Insulin
Ken, just as well you transferred it over to this other thread. The trouble with comments is that you always want to answer them! I could hardly leave being called 'dangerous' alone now, could I....
At least I can carry on making my 'dangerous' comments on this thread. Ta.
Ali.
At least I can carry on making my 'dangerous' comments on this thread. Ta.
Ali.
Hi Ally,
This shows a link between Hyperglycemia and scurvy perhaps this is the problem Ally. Just how many patients have you seen with scurvy that follow Low Carb diet. :?: I can't find any statistics so perhaps you could provide them for us.
http://grande.nal.usda.gov/ibids/index. ... row=556069
Graham xxx
This shows a link between Hyperglycemia and scurvy perhaps this is the problem Ally. Just how many patients have you seen with scurvy that follow Low Carb diet. :?: I can't find any statistics so perhaps you could provide them for us.
http://grande.nal.usda.gov/ibids/index. ... row=556069
Graham xxx
You may well think it is funny but long term low carbers need supplements- Ii am quite certain that you all must be.
It does no good to mock me but at least i have made some of you more aware. There is more to eating well that just carb restriction
It does no good to mock me but at least i have made some of you more aware. There is more to eating well that just carb restriction
AliB
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 334
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Insulin
You are absolutely right. Eating well is very much the key.
The point is though that so many have digestive issues these days that they are unaware of the fact that gut damage has created malabsorption problems inside. Even people without any obvious digestive issues - other than the ubiquitous gas and bloating (which must be 'normal' 'cause, hey!, everyone gets that don't they?), can still have gut damage - as the case of 'silent Coeliac' well demonstrates.
Our bodies are wonderful things. Quite capable of sorting themselves out - if we give them the right materials. Taking supplements well demonstrates that - otherwise it wouldn't be worth it, and HPs would not even bother to suggest it or give them too us.
So what makes the difference? Why does someone not have pernicious anaemia at one point, then have it a few months or years later? Why could they obviously absorb B12 from their food at one point then not some time later? Who threw the switch? The gut damage did.
No, you can't see it - not even the Professionals can see it until it is really bad, but it is there all the same. You may not get any symptoms until it is really bad, but it is there all the same. And while we are ingesting food-like substances that continue the cycle of damage it will continue to get worse.
If you do nothing else - please watch the 'MUST SEE' video that Hana has posted on the LC forum by Robert Lustig - a well respected eminent head of pediatrics in the US, on the dangers of fructose - specifically High Fructose Corn Syrup, not the natural kind that you have when you eat whole fruit, and what it is doing to us and our children.
Add to that the huge quantity of sugar, processed carbohydrate foods and the fact that these items are in most of the food that most people eat - or drink - today in some form or another and it is no wonder that we are all so sick.
If restricting carbs means that I have removed this **** from my diet and replaced it with all natural highly nutritious food, un-processed, un-adulterated, and un-HFCSed then I'm all for restricting carbs.
Yes, I need to take some supplements - but that is because my body is still struggling to undo all the years of damage that has been inflicted on me by these 'yummy' doses of pure poison.
The point is though that so many have digestive issues these days that they are unaware of the fact that gut damage has created malabsorption problems inside. Even people without any obvious digestive issues - other than the ubiquitous gas and bloating (which must be 'normal' 'cause, hey!, everyone gets that don't they?), can still have gut damage - as the case of 'silent Coeliac' well demonstrates.
Our bodies are wonderful things. Quite capable of sorting themselves out - if we give them the right materials. Taking supplements well demonstrates that - otherwise it wouldn't be worth it, and HPs would not even bother to suggest it or give them too us.
So what makes the difference? Why does someone not have pernicious anaemia at one point, then have it a few months or years later? Why could they obviously absorb B12 from their food at one point then not some time later? Who threw the switch? The gut damage did.
No, you can't see it - not even the Professionals can see it until it is really bad, but it is there all the same. You may not get any symptoms until it is really bad, but it is there all the same. And while we are ingesting food-like substances that continue the cycle of damage it will continue to get worse.
If you do nothing else - please watch the 'MUST SEE' video that Hana has posted on the LC forum by Robert Lustig - a well respected eminent head of pediatrics in the US, on the dangers of fructose - specifically High Fructose Corn Syrup, not the natural kind that you have when you eat whole fruit, and what it is doing to us and our children.
Add to that the huge quantity of sugar, processed carbohydrate foods and the fact that these items are in most of the food that most people eat - or drink - today in some form or another and it is no wonder that we are all so sick.
If restricting carbs means that I have removed this **** from my diet and replaced it with all natural highly nutritious food, un-processed, un-adulterated, and un-HFCSed then I'm all for restricting carbs.
Yes, I need to take some supplements - but that is because my body is still struggling to undo all the years of damage that has been inflicted on me by these 'yummy' doses of pure poison.
well yes that is a point but there is a huge difference when you are talking about fructose and wholegrains in my opinion!
Nonsense. I have been on a reduced / low carb diet for 9 years and take no suplements other than vitamin D, not because of a dietary deficiency, but because I live 'oop north where we simply don't get enough sunshine, full stop.
So not only is it quite untrue in my case, the argument simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. None of those who follow a low carb diet to my knowledge restrict the most nutrient dense carbohydrates. Vegetables, in as natural a state as possible. Most, if not all, in fact eat much more of these foods than they ever did previously on a 'balanced diet'. You might even call it a high carb diet, if your criteria were nutrient density, lack of processing and sheer volume.
The carbohydrates that are excluded are those refined flours and starches that typically have very little nutritional value at all. But then, we've said all this before and it doesn't seem to get through, does it? :roll:
All the best,
fergus
AliB
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 334
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Insulin
Hear, hear, Fergus.
The thing is Ally that even wholegrains are not necessarily good for some people.
Since Gregor Mendel first hybridised wheat 300 years ago man has been striving to make the stuff grow bigger, better, yield more for less, grow where it didn't grow before, etc., etc.
Before it started to be 'mucked about with' it is estimated that it contained around 2% gluten. Modern wheat now contains at least 13%. By doing that they have turned it into a glue-y product that can hold more air and give you a bigger loaf for less quantity. They are constantly striving to make it more commercially lucrative.
Glue is the operative word - and gluten is latin for glue. From gluten can be made some of the strongest glues known to man.
As if 13% was not enough, some manufacturers actually add even more to the mix when they make the bread.
Now, if you were to always consume hand-made oven baked stoneground wholegrain bread, you might get away with a bit of 13% gluten sometimes. But the majority of the stuff that is on sale in the supermarkets isn't that good. For a start, where the traditional making of bread took hours to prove and bake - a process with helps to break down the gluten and render it into a more digestible form, modern bread-making has the stuff in one end and out the other within 45 minutes.
On top of that, in order to get even more product out of the stuff they add flour 'improvers' to make it rise even more and do other processes. Although it is in such a small quantity you are unlikely to see it on the ingredient list, part of the 'improver' additive is often data esters, commonly made from petrochemicals.
So although you might always eat hand-made oven-baked stoneground wholegrain bread, millions don't and those millions typically make up the poorest in society.
We mostly ate relatively good bread, but we also consumed bought cakes, biscuits, rolls, pies, buns, eclairs, pizza, pasta, etc., etc., all made of white flour. I often would make stuff for my family - using white flour.
This stuff is damaging people. Yes, the HFCS is bad stuff, but what it is put into is also bad stuff.
As an eminent food journalist said, what is the point of making this stuff grow better, bigger or give more for less, if in doing so they have made it virtually indigestible?
Animals who are given this stuff in their food are also developing our diseases. That is no coincidence.
The thing is Ally that even wholegrains are not necessarily good for some people.
Since Gregor Mendel first hybridised wheat 300 years ago man has been striving to make the stuff grow bigger, better, yield more for less, grow where it didn't grow before, etc., etc.
Before it started to be 'mucked about with' it is estimated that it contained around 2% gluten. Modern wheat now contains at least 13%. By doing that they have turned it into a glue-y product that can hold more air and give you a bigger loaf for less quantity. They are constantly striving to make it more commercially lucrative.
Glue is the operative word - and gluten is latin for glue. From gluten can be made some of the strongest glues known to man.
As if 13% was not enough, some manufacturers actually add even more to the mix when they make the bread.
Now, if you were to always consume hand-made oven baked stoneground wholegrain bread, you might get away with a bit of 13% gluten sometimes. But the majority of the stuff that is on sale in the supermarkets isn't that good. For a start, where the traditional making of bread took hours to prove and bake - a process with helps to break down the gluten and render it into a more digestible form, modern bread-making has the stuff in one end and out the other within 45 minutes.
On top of that, in order to get even more product out of the stuff they add flour 'improvers' to make it rise even more and do other processes. Although it is in such a small quantity you are unlikely to see it on the ingredient list, part of the 'improver' additive is often data esters, commonly made from petrochemicals.
So although you might always eat hand-made oven-baked stoneground wholegrain bread, millions don't and those millions typically make up the poorest in society.
We mostly ate relatively good bread, but we also consumed bought cakes, biscuits, rolls, pies, buns, eclairs, pizza, pasta, etc., etc., all made of white flour. I often would make stuff for my family - using white flour.
This stuff is damaging people. Yes, the HFCS is bad stuff, but what it is put into is also bad stuff.
As an eminent food journalist said, what is the point of making this stuff grow better, bigger or give more for less, if in doing so they have made it virtually indigestible?
Animals who are given this stuff in their food are also developing our diseases. That is no coincidence.
I just don't get it? I've dropped nutritionally sparse foods for nutritionally dense foods and that's a problem because?
Can someone please tell me the secret ingredient that's found in in wheat that I can't get from far healthier sources elsewhere? It must be a secret, no one has been able to answer that question up till now. Are we really advocating that refined carbs are better than fibrous, organic vegetables?
I'll just wait here shall I?
:shock:
Can someone please tell me the secret ingredient that's found in in wheat that I can't get from far healthier sources elsewhere? It must be a secret, no one has been able to answer that question up till now. Are we really advocating that refined carbs are better than fibrous, organic vegetables?
I'll just wait here shall I?
:shock:
Selective breeding of wheat began many millenia before Gregor Mendel.
It is an interesting subject - I remember writing an essay on it at University - but have forgotten all the details :?
A thumbnail run through can be found here:
http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/farming/st ... thist.html
It is an interesting subject - I remember writing an essay on it at University - but have forgotten all the details :?
A thumbnail run through can be found here:
http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/farming/st ... thist.html
phoenix
Expert
- Messages
- 5,671
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Pump
Well obviously you'll have to wait a long time, because no-one has suggested substituting refined grains for vegetables, whole wheat is of course only one variety of whole grain. What is suggested is that there are health benefits from minimally processed whole grains*(see Slavin below for definition, history of processing , summary of possible benefits and mechanisms) This is far too difficult to summarise so you'll have to read the paper.
It is possible that the benefits are entirely due to the fibre content. If so then it is of course possible to eat enough vegetables to do this.
I decided to work out just how much:
First problem, how much fibre is recommended? The UK suggestion is 18g; however the BNF feels that this is too low suggesting 30g. The WHO recommends an RDA of between 20g and 40g. I have rather arbitrarily used 25g; this is higher than the UK suggestion but the median rec. for women from WHO, though still lower than that suggested for men .
Using a British online source (and different sources will produce different figures) I chose a selection of common vegetables, mostly green but added red peppers and aubergine to widen the variety. After selecting 800gm worth I had reached the British target amount but widened my source to include nuts as these are another nongrain source of fibre. Fifty grams of nuts and still there was still less than 25g of fibre, so I turned to fruit choosing avocado , low in carb but high in fibre. I also counted the carbs; this selection has a carb content of 33 so just over Bernstein’s limit.
Spinach 100 g fibre 2.4g carb 3.75
Broccoli 100g fibre 2.6 g carb 2.1
Cauliflower 100g fibre 1.6 carb 2.7g
Aubergine 100g fibre 2.3 carb 2.8g
Red pepper 100g fibre1.6 carb 6.4g
Savoy cabbage 100g fibre 2.8 carb 3.5g
Courgette 100g fibre 1.2 carb 2.2g
Mixed salad 100g fibre 3 carb 3.4g
Almonds 50g fibre 4.2 carb 4.25g
Avocado 100g fibre 3.4 carb 1.9g
But how many people eat this amount ? Certainly no-one on the diets that Ally analysed. The five fruit and veg a day, advice assumes a total of 400grams a day but is set alongside advice to eat starchy carbs, preferably whole grains. You have to eat an awful lot of 'fibrous organic vegetables'.
Even with a mixed diet including grains, legumes , fruit and vegetables many of us probably fall short but it is certainly much easier.I realised I was a bit low and have tried to include more high fibre legumes recently.
It maybe that not all fibre is beneficial for all purposes. Possibly different types of fibre are useful in specific areas. Beta glucans seem to be beneficial in cardiovascular health, major sources are barley and oatmeal. Residual starch may be beneficial for lipid control and glucose stability, and probably is important for colonic health, this is chiefly found in whole or partly-milled grains and seeds, pulses, and cooked and cooled (retrograded) potatoes. (and some processed breakfast cereals)
This becomes difficult to test and to separate out and often results in fairly artificial types of experiments but there have been many. of varying quality. (and the literature search would take a long time!) some of these are summarised by Oldways and the Wholegrain council in the link below.
One recent study did attempt to separate the effects of fibre from wholegrain to that of fibre from other sources in the incidence of colonic cancer. (Schatzkin et al)
In this prospective cohort study, total dietary fiber intake was not associated with colorectal cancer risk, whereas whole grain consumption was associated with a modest reduced risk.
According to the researchers ”These findings suggest that whole-grain components other than fiber — e.g. vitamins, minerals, phenols, and phytoestrogens affect colorectal carcinogenesis.”
As suggested above .There may be health benefits in whole grains caused by something other than the fibre. It maybe a combination of phytonutrients or vitamins, or minerals etc acting synergistically , ie the whole package (and of course different whole grains will vary, it’s not just wheat!) The Slavin paper discusses this.
Slavin J Nutrition Research Reviews,Vol17:99-110, May 2007
Whole Grains and Health
Reprinted @
http://www.wholegrainscouncil.org/files/SlavinArticle0504.pdf
Schatzkin et al., Am J Clin Nutr., 85: 1353-1360, 2007
Dietary fiber and whole grain consumption in relation to colorectal cancer in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study
[urlhttp://www.wholegrainscouncil.org/files/WGResearchSummary_WGCJan09.pdf]
Recent research into wholegrains and health from Oldways and the Wholegrain Council (up to you to decide on validity,and check out its origins and funding)
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/5/1353[/url]
Thanks for the very considered & interesting post Phoenix. I will certainly look at Slavin's work, alas not until the weekend I'm afraid, way too much work to do!
Personally I'm not overly convinced on the dietary fibre recommendations, my lipids have improved beyond measure over the last year, so don't need to worry about increasing soluble fibre more than I'm eating at present, unless I want to flush out all the good cholesterol too. I know your links refer to possible benefits for colonic cancer etc, but I think lipid panels are a good indicator of the health of the cardiovascular system, and thus the body as a whole. I feel I'm eating enough fibre for my bodies maintenance. My toilet habits are certainly far more satisfactory than previously LOL
Even with that in mind I was interested to know how the usual starchy carb wholefoods compare. I've taken the following from Fitday, they are all whole foods based on edible form, all are 100g portions:
Boiled Potato, skin on 1.1
Whole grain bread 3.8
Brown rice, cooked 3.8
Wholemeal pasta 3.3
Hardly figures to get excited about, by contrast nuts are super fibre foods.
Pecans 9.6
Almonds 11.8
Walnuts 6.7
Macadamia Nuts 11.5
There is of course the issue of portion size, starchy carbs tend to be denser and so don't look as much on the plate but most fibrous veggies wilt down (you can eat a tonne of spinach this way). Personally, I don't mind eating big portions of veg, makes me feel wholesome and keeps me full. I also tend to graze on nuts through the day, although I could easily eat 100g of macadamias at a sitting LOL. I know other people make other choices and that's fine, but it's certainly doable to eat the recommended intake of fibre from sources other than starchy carbs.
Based on the figures above, my BG levels would be through the roof (without medication) fulfilling your daily requirement with starchy wholefoods.
As for the idea that eating grains itself is health promoting for reasons other than fibre, well maybe, who knows, all natural foods can make a claim to that. The question is, as a type 2, is an increase in grain (and thus an increase in BG) worth these benefits/costs comparison? Not that it is clear that there are particular benefits, actually.
For me the answer is simple, but that is based on the fact that I take no meds and wish to maintain a Hb1Ac in the 5s if possible. Other people with other perspectives may feel differently.
So to come back to the original question, there still isn't a compelling argument as to why I should try to fit in the starchy stuff! :cry: I can still get far more fibre in diabetic friendly forms and I'm not going to sweat to much about a few micro nutrients, which may, or may not, provide additional health benefits.
Edit BTW, I don't follow Bernstein. I follow my meter
Personally I'm not overly convinced on the dietary fibre recommendations, my lipids have improved beyond measure over the last year, so don't need to worry about increasing soluble fibre more than I'm eating at present, unless I want to flush out all the good cholesterol too. I know your links refer to possible benefits for colonic cancer etc, but I think lipid panels are a good indicator of the health of the cardiovascular system, and thus the body as a whole. I feel I'm eating enough fibre for my bodies maintenance. My toilet habits are certainly far more satisfactory than previously LOL
Even with that in mind I was interested to know how the usual starchy carb wholefoods compare. I've taken the following from Fitday, they are all whole foods based on edible form, all are 100g portions:
Boiled Potato, skin on 1.1
Whole grain bread 3.8
Brown rice, cooked 3.8
Wholemeal pasta 3.3
Hardly figures to get excited about, by contrast nuts are super fibre foods.
Pecans 9.6
Almonds 11.8
Walnuts 6.7
Macadamia Nuts 11.5
There is of course the issue of portion size, starchy carbs tend to be denser and so don't look as much on the plate but most fibrous veggies wilt down (you can eat a tonne of spinach this way). Personally, I don't mind eating big portions of veg, makes me feel wholesome and keeps me full. I also tend to graze on nuts through the day, although I could easily eat 100g of macadamias at a sitting LOL. I know other people make other choices and that's fine, but it's certainly doable to eat the recommended intake of fibre from sources other than starchy carbs.
Based on the figures above, my BG levels would be through the roof (without medication) fulfilling your daily requirement with starchy wholefoods.
As for the idea that eating grains itself is health promoting for reasons other than fibre, well maybe, who knows, all natural foods can make a claim to that. The question is, as a type 2, is an increase in grain (and thus an increase in BG) worth these benefits/costs comparison? Not that it is clear that there are particular benefits, actually.
For me the answer is simple, but that is based on the fact that I take no meds and wish to maintain a Hb1Ac in the 5s if possible. Other people with other perspectives may feel differently.
So to come back to the original question, there still isn't a compelling argument as to why I should try to fit in the starchy stuff! :cry: I can still get far more fibre in diabetic friendly forms and I'm not going to sweat to much about a few micro nutrients, which may, or may not, provide additional health benefits.
Edit BTW, I don't follow Bernstein. I follow my meter
I too find it difficult to consider whole grains a better source of fiber or indeed nutrition than vegetables or nuts. Calorie-for-calorie they contain 2 to 7 times less fiber than vegetables, far lower quantities of vitamins and minerals, and contain phytate which inhibits absorption of iron, zinc and calcium. They deliver a high acid load to the renal system. Evolutionarily we had no exposure to whole grains until ~20,000 years ago. It simply seems that there are far more nutritious ways of getting in your fiber.
There's also serious doubt in my mind that we even need the recommended quantities of fiber. The evidence that fiber protects against cancer is weak and contradictory, and there are experimental studies showing that high fiber intake damages the gut wall and may lead to an increase in colon cancer.
Further, the fact that whole grains are relatively high carb needs to be taken into account for the diabetic. The health benefits of whole grains would have to be great to counter-balance the high carbs in my mind, and the evidence I've seen so far is that this simply isn't the case.
I haven't read Slavin's work or Schatzkin's study yet but I will do when I get the time; it may be that they convince me otherwise.
It's a great discussion though, very interesting!
There's also serious doubt in my mind that we even need the recommended quantities of fiber. The evidence that fiber protects against cancer is weak and contradictory, and there are experimental studies showing that high fiber intake damages the gut wall and may lead to an increase in colon cancer.
Further, the fact that whole grains are relatively high carb needs to be taken into account for the diabetic. The health benefits of whole grains would have to be great to counter-balance the high carbs in my mind, and the evidence I've seen so far is that this simply isn't the case.
I haven't read Slavin's work or Schatzkin's study yet but I will do when I get the time; it may be that they convince me otherwise.
It's a great discussion though, very interesting!
phoenix
Expert
- Messages
- 5,671
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Pump
Nick and Doczoc,
Evidence on all dietary influences is by it nature problematic and hence results are contoversial .Below is the list of the strength of evidence grades by the WHO for a high intake of NSP(fibre)to protect against:
weight gain and obesity Convincing
type 2 diabetes : Probable
(would have been convincing but for the fact that the experimental studies suggest that soluble forms of NSP exert benefit whereas the prospective cohort studies suggest that it is the cereal-derived insoluble forms thatare protective explain the ‘‘probable’’ rather ‘‘convincing’’grading of the level of evidence)
Cardiovascular disease Probable (whole grain cereals also separately listed)
Cancer (listed as fibre) Possible/insufficient
Dental caries Possible
So obviously the evidence is not clearcut for cancer, but evidence that fibre has a protective property against obesity, type 2 and cardiovascular disease is by fairly strcit criteria,much stronger.
I want to reiterate that I am not saying that one has to eat huge quanities of whole grains,but that they should ideally form part of a varied diet. As people with diabetes we obviously have to be more careful than others of the type of carbs amd quantity at any invidual meal, but unless you are eating what I would regard as an extremely low carb diet it is perfectly possible to include them by choosing carefully. There are at least 20 to choose from. You could eat lower carb 'grains' like quinoia (technically not a grain but normally accepted as one) or barley which has a very low gi ( I found a good recipe for braised beef with barley the other day, 21g carbs 5g fibre), Personally I also choose a very low gi bread, such as non industrially made, sourdough rye, or mixed grain bread.
Nick,
As you quite recently mention the paleo diet, and use the phrase 'what we have evolved to eat', you may be interested to read 2 articles. The first on a recent thesis that the shift from raw to cooked foods was key in human evolution. The second on the evolution of our ability to digest starch.
Unfortunately only a tiny outline @ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cooking-up-bigger-brains&page=2 a detailed account is in book form 'Catching Fire, How Cooking made us human' Richard Wrangham 2009 .
edit to add that there's another brief review here
http://www.slate.com/id/2219162/
Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy
number variation
http://people.bu.edu/msoren/Perry.pdf
Evidence on all dietary influences is by it nature problematic and hence results are contoversial .Below is the list of the strength of evidence grades by the WHO for a high intake of NSP(fibre)to protect against:
weight gain and obesity Convincing
type 2 diabetes : Probable
(would have been convincing but for the fact that the experimental studies suggest that soluble forms of NSP exert benefit whereas the prospective cohort studies suggest that it is the cereal-derived insoluble forms thatare protective explain the ‘‘probable’’ rather ‘‘convincing’’grading of the level of evidence)
Cardiovascular disease Probable (whole grain cereals also separately listed)
Cancer (listed as fibre) Possible/insufficient
Dental caries Possible
So obviously the evidence is not clearcut for cancer, but evidence that fibre has a protective property against obesity, type 2 and cardiovascular disease is by fairly strcit criteria,much stronger.
I want to reiterate that I am not saying that one has to eat huge quanities of whole grains,but that they should ideally form part of a varied diet. As people with diabetes we obviously have to be more careful than others of the type of carbs amd quantity at any invidual meal, but unless you are eating what I would regard as an extremely low carb diet it is perfectly possible to include them by choosing carefully. There are at least 20 to choose from. You could eat lower carb 'grains' like quinoia (technically not a grain but normally accepted as one) or barley which has a very low gi ( I found a good recipe for braised beef with barley the other day, 21g carbs 5g fibre), Personally I also choose a very low gi bread, such as non industrially made, sourdough rye, or mixed grain bread.
Nick,
As you quite recently mention the paleo diet, and use the phrase 'what we have evolved to eat', you may be interested to read 2 articles. The first on a recent thesis that the shift from raw to cooked foods was key in human evolution. The second on the evolution of our ability to digest starch.
Unfortunately only a tiny outline @ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cooking-up-bigger-brains&page=2 a detailed account is in book form 'Catching Fire, How Cooking made us human' Richard Wrangham 2009 .
edit to add that there's another brief review here
http://www.slate.com/id/2219162/
Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy
number variation
http://people.bu.edu/msoren/Perry.pdf
Sid Bonkers
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,976
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Diet only
- Dislikes
- Customer helplines that use recorded menus that promise to put me through to the right person but never do - and being ill. Oh, and did I mention customer helplines :)
IMHO you lot need to get out more, I dont give a monkeys what wholegrains do or do not have that is or is not essential to life. I eat wholegrain food because I like it and eaten in moderation it does me no harm. I also like strong black espresso coffee and drink it by the pot full and I dont care if that may or may not cause heart problems, I like it.
I really do think that a few posters on this forum are way to anal about their diets.
Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die.
I really do think that a few posters on this forum are way to anal about their diets.
Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die.
Sid Bonkers said:
Call me what you want Sid, I'm in my mid thirties, and, considering the spectre of complications I think I have every right to be careful. I'm hoping to live many more complication free years to come. I'm sorry if my precautions offend you. Perhaps you could try celebrating my individuality rather than dictating what I should and shouldn't be doing???? :wink:
Just maybe, some of us would like to deepen our understanding. I know that is not everyone's cup of tea but this is a diabetes forum. Just in case you hadn't noticed. By the way, I get out plenty. having a diet that works does that for you!
But you could be right Sid, maybe ignorance is bliss after all! :roll:
