What happens when our personal experiences disagree with research.

[Neohdiver]

For me fat is a vital part of my very low carb diet as it replaces energy I require but am no longer getting from carbs. It doesn't have to be excessive or extreme but it IS important that enough is available either from dietary or bodily fat for me to continue functioning. Certainly if you need to lose weight you have an existing bodily fat source to use, but if you don't, you either have to eat adequate fat or carbs or may end up cannibalizing your body for fuel. Maybe this is why the fat part of LCHF tends to be emphasised.

Robbity

What you do need is a source of fuel (calories). That can come from 3 sources: fat, carbs, or protein. The two macros I personally consider vital to watch are carbs (to stay below the level that triggers elevated blood glucose) and protein (my personal choice is to strive for a "just right" amount of protein - enough to sustain lean body mass but not an excess that may tax my kidneys). I have no target at all for fat - and won't once I reach maintenance.

 

[AtkinsMo]

I just think that some people are being particularly pedantic for no good reason, when you read the content, without the bickering, we're all saying the same thing! When you lower carbs, particularly extremely, you have to replace them with something, fat is the healthy option. We are having to try to counteract 40 years plus of misinformation, based on flawed research.

But back to the topic, I am completely mystified how people get the funding to research such preposterous things! Haven't we moved on at all? It's like the original research on cholesterol, where rabbits (herbivores) were fed huge amounts of (probably oxidised) cholesterol - and VOILA the Cholesterol / heart hypothesis was born! Thankfully there are now infinitely more clever scientists and statisticians around, and of course we can all access the studies on the Internet, and these ridiculous theories can be properly evaluated / rebutted. I particularly like Denise Minger and Stephanie Senneff's blogs on research.

 

[Kyi]

I do think the low carb diets are getting more support but I also think we are a long way off getting it accepted by most GP's. The trouble is people do not understand low carb diets. They are all concentrating on what doesnt work instead of looking at what does work. Time and time again I read Drs dissing LCHF diets as not working because of complications. Instead of taking the Low Carbs work and studying how it can be improved so that its safe for all they would rather just say it doesnt work despite armies of diabetics saying it does. Unless you are a scientist proving it, no one wants to know.

 

[Jamrox]

Kyi , the GPs have to wait until the scientific evidence catches up . The research is happening right now and should be available after 2017 . Whilst I am all for the lower carb approach as it works for me , I would be worried that the Drs didn't wait until they saw the proof before guidelines were changed . I believe that in a few years time the evidence will be strong and the guidelines will change . In the meantime I tell everyone who will listen that lower carbing works for me .

 

[Kyi]

Kyi , the GPs have to wait until the scientific evidence catches up . The research is happening right now and should be available after 2017 . Whilst I am all for the lower carb approach as it works for me , I would be worried that the Drs didn't wait until they saw the proof before guidelines were changed . I believe that in a few years time the evidence will be strong and the guidelines will change . In the meantime I tell everyone who will listen that lower carbing works for me .

They didnt wait for the eat well plate. The low carb diet has been around since the 1800's why is it that they need to wait until 2017 exactly? Isnt over 100 years of people living it good enough?
https://archive.org/stream/diabeticcookeryr00oppeiala#page/2/mode/2up Reading this its the low carb cook book from the 1817s

 

[JohnEGreen]

@Kyi thanks for that link very interesting.

 

[Kyi]

@Kyi thanks for that link very interesting.

Some of the recipes sound good too lol. When you see casein or casoid flour, its whey powder.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

When you lower carbs, particularly extremely, you have to replace them with something, fat is the healthy option.

Just one little caveat, if you're several stone overweight, like what I is (small jest there), replacing calories isn't quite so important. My body has decided to store that energy as fat in the past and I really would like to use it up. Only it doesn't always work that way. In fact when I showed my GP that my low carb didn't mean high fat and that I was only eating between 800 and 1200 calories a day and still not losing (with or without additional exercise) she said "eat more". I tried that and guess what, my weight increased.

If your weight is OK then, yes, you'll need to replace those calories with something and fat is not the demon that we've been told for so many years.

 

[Jamrox]

Kyi I know what you mean and believe me I agree with you but the medical profession have to wait for the evidence and without proper clinical trials the evidence isn't available.

My gran was a diabetics and her diet was made of portions , the portions were carbohydrates and she had to restrict them so you are right lower carbs have been around for a long time . I don't know when the message changed but I know that through this forum etc the message re lower carb is out there.

 

[Kyi]

I think the trouble is you can not make money by someone cutting down on carbs and fixing their diet so no longer need medication. The trouble with the NHS is if there is no money for the researchers to make after their experiments guess what, they dont do the experiments. And no money for the Drs surgery because they no longer have 50% of their patients as diabetic (yes they get paid to diagnose diabetes) Is it a case of I gain nothing by fixing the problems? Most people researching low carb diets are not NHS researchers when the Drs are the prime source of knowledge. If a patient is willing to try low carb and be monitored why isnt the data just collected.

 

[AtkinsMo]

A patient cured is a customer lost!

 

[Clivethedrive]

Kyi , the GPs have to wait until the scientific evidence catches up . The research is happening right now and should be available after 2017 . Whilst I am all for the lower carb approach as it works for me , I would be worried that the Drs didn't wait until they saw the proof before guidelines were changed . I believe that in a few years time the evidence will be strong and the guidelines will change . In the meantime I tell everyone who will listen that lower carbing works for me .

Exactly!

 

[Jamrox]

Sorry but that is absolute rubbish . I know there is loads of audits and research going on around diabetes .
Do you really think that the NHS doesn't want to stop people getting diabetes ? Have you actually seen all the publicity ? It's every where . The mantra being prevention is better than cure .
Years ago smoking was said to be good for everyone , obviously that was wrong . Research proved that it was wrong . Research in a couple of years prove that low carb is the way to go . Medics cannot go on anecdotal evidence alone .

Also Doctors aren't always the best people to do the research , that's why the NHS employs researchers .

Sorry for the rant

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

Sorry but that is absolute rubbish . I know there is loads of audits and research going on around diabetes .
Do you really think that the NHS doesn't want to stop people getting diabetes ? Have you actually seen all the publicity ? It's every where . The mantra being prevention is better than cure .
Years ago smoking was said to be good for everyone , obviously that was wrong . Research proved that it was wrong . Research in a couple of years prove that low carb is the way to go . Medics cannot go on anecdotal evidence alone .

Also Doctors aren't always the best people to do the research , that's why the NHS employs researchers .

Sorry for the rant

It's not so much about preventing diabetes that is at issue, it's the treatment. It's either incompetence or on purpose that the NHS tells type 2s to eat a high carb diet and not self test. I suspect it's more a case of incompetence and laziness.

 

[Jamrox]

It's not so much about preventing diabetes that is at issue, it's the treatment. It's either incompetence or on purpose that the NHS tells type 2s to eat a high carb diet and not self test. I suspect it's more a case of incompetence and laziness.

It's neither , it's the national guidelines . Healthcare staff HAVE TO go by the national guidelines and standards unless they have a genuine reason not to . Without the evidence to prove lower carb then they go with national guidance.

I have had discussions with dieticians and nurses about it . The message is out there and things are changing , hence the publicity about it .

I object to busy healthcare workers being called lazy or incompetent.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

It's not as if low carb is anything new, William Banting wrote/published "Letter on Corpulence" in 1863. His low carb approach to weight loss was actually based on what his physician had told him after attending a lecture on diabetes many years earlier. Lowering carbs seems to have dipped in and out of popularity ever since.

 

[Neohdiver]

It's neither , it's the national guidelines . Healthcare staff HAVE TO go by the national guidelines and standards unless they have a genuine reason not to . Without the evidence to prove lower carb then they go with national guidance.

I have had discussions with dieticians and nurses about it . The message is out there and things are changing , hence the publicity about it .

I object to busy healthcare workers being called lazy or incompetent.

Just out of curiosity, where is the evidence that prove the national guidelines and standards are safe and effective to treat diabetes? They are the status quo, but that doesn't mean they are science/evidence based. It seems to me that the fact that diabetes is considered a chronic progressive disease, littered with kidney transplants, limb amputations, blindness, etc. is pretty good evidence that the status quo is not safe or effective.

I agree they are not lazy - most are overworked and have far too many patients to keep individual tabs on. The latter means that I have to be pretty aggressive in my own research and advocacy. I don't expect them to be ahead of the curve (although I'm grateful when they are!). But I do expect them to engage seriously with me about what is or is not working for me, and to respond with sound analytical reasoning to anything I suggest based on my research.

If any of my health care providers responded to me that he can't recommend a low carb diet for control of diabetes and gave no reason beyond "the guidelines," or "insurance says so." it would be the last day of our doctor-patient relationship. It would be at least the 5th doctor I've parted company with for toeing the insurance/standards line rather than putting my individual health first. I've run into too many first class doctors who have made me a partner in caring for my health care and that of my family to tolerate someone who is too busy to look beyond the textbook.

 

[Jamrox]

@Neohdiver I totally agree with you about being equal in the dr patient relationship and being listened to . To be honest I have found my own way and I'm confident to do my own thing .
The evidence is usually at the back of the guideline.

 

[Jamrox]

http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign116.pdf the level of evidence and the references are clear to see.

 

[Jamrox]

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng28/resources again the evidence is clear to see