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

Who has had depression due to low carbing?

catherinecherub said:
I personally think the number of carbs you eat is defined by what your meter tells you and not what someone on a forum tells you is the ideal amount.
Click to expand...

Agree and I say that when I initially respond to a newly diagnosed post.

I say to start at 120 - 150g then adjust up or down based on your meter reading. I pick 120 - 150 as that in my opinion is a good value to start from and is the value you would be told in countries who use more up to date research than the UK. The point is to get down to that 120 - 150g start will mean that most people will have to reduce starchy carbs. I would point out I advice a level at least twice as high as I average based on my meter readings.

Likewise I state people can eat more than 150g and maybe still get safe readings if they are prepared in most cases to take the meds to allow it, likewise I also point out if they go ULC they MIGHT be able to give up meds entirely. I also say testing is important as it allows you to adjust your carb levels to keep them safe. If there is anything controversial in what I say its that 7.8 is my preferred safe level rather than the UK 8.5 level but make sure I do say UK 8.5 in the sentence.

I don't mention G.I explicitly because I think at diagnosis the priority is getting levels back to safety and it may confuse the new member to throw terms like G.I around. I do normally say that after someone has got back to safety using whatever method they can start to adjust their carb / fat / protein balance.

I think Grazer says roughly the same but can't speak for him.

If you think there's a problem in any of that Catherine then I'm quite willing to listen.


Likewise I get a lot of private PM's asking for advice on getting control and a range of other things and am always willing to help if I can. I have answered questions from people on all sides of the carb debate.
 
noblehead said:
how people define low-carb is neither here or there IMHO.
Click to expand...

Although I agree with all posters who say eat a level of carbs that keep you safe as that's what I do I still think some definition and clarity of what constitutes low carb is helpful. There is and has historically been disagreement on this forum around that low / high carb issue but like you say a lot of that is caused by people simply having different definition of what low carb means.

I personally think that having say a NICE 8.5 blood safety definition is an identical kind of thing as defining low carb at less than 130g and ULC at 30g and in many other countries that is exactly what is done and those values are stated to patients in the same way as 8.5 (or 7.8 ) is. Putting a number against low carb allows people to make an informed choice and removes the possibility of misinterpreting what is being said by posters.
 
I'm definitely NOT depressed. I simply wouldn't have the time. I don't know how I ever found time to go out to work. If I get a spare minute to read a silly book [I like silly books] I hide, so no-one can come and ask me to do something for them. I even misplace my mobile to remain untraceable for an hour or so. I'm not good at saying "NO!"
I don't count my carbs or weigh my food. That all takes too much time. I try to avoid unnecessary carbs, so For breakfast today, I had a few slices of ham.[ I love the tinned ham from LIDL sliced very thin} I then went down to Waitrose to do the weekly shop. This didn't get done on Thursday for some reason. I did have a coffee and HALF a coissant in Waitrose Then I went to Tesco to look at children's clothing. My granddaughter turns 4 on Tuesday and has just gone through a growth spurt. Hence a need for birthday presents.
I came out of Tesco and went to the bus stop. It told me the bus was due in 4 minutes.I walked to the next stop which also said 4 minutes. I HATE waiting so I continued to walk towards home. It's only about 2.5 miles. Unfortunately all of it uphill. I walked all the way. Took a lot longer than waiting 4 minutes, but there are 2 little nature reserves with wood anemones and celendines and squirrels and birds[ saw a tree creeper], so a pleasant way to hide for an hour or so. I probably walked off the half croissant and got in my daily dose of aerobics.
Anyway isn't walking supposed to be one of the best treatments for depression?
Hana
 
xyzzy said:
I say to start at 120 - 150g then adjust up or down based on your meter reading. I pick 120 - 150 as that in my opinion is a good value to start from and is the value you would be told in countries who use more up to date research than the UK.
Click to expand...

I agree xyzzy. Everyone has to find the level of carbohydrate restriction that will deliver them the results that they need. It's an iterative process, and as such it has to start with a first guess. 120g is as good as any, it isn't too low but will probably deliver excellent results in a very short time for an uncontrolled diabetic.

I don't think that carbohydrates cause depression directly, but in my case they caused obesity, thrush, candida, sleep apnea and type 2 diabetes, a collection of ailments that would make anyone glum. I've never been depressed, but low-carbing cured all of that and made me feel healthier and more alive than I've ever felt before.
 
 
Sorry - the bove "flew away ! before I could comment. Not at all catherine, I was not referribg to your post at all. In fact I agreed with it.
It just seemed to me that we were about to enter into one of these pointless discussions about how many carbs defines a low carber.
I folllowed he GI diet for many years and i must have worked for me because I have been told hat I have probably been diabetic all my adult life although only accidentally diagnosed sortly before my 60th birthday.

I know very well that you have studied the GI approach for a long ime and wish I had known you before I obviously needed somehing more. I still try to follow the GI way but with reduced starchy carbs and his seems to be working.
I am very grateful for and conscious of all your contribuions.
I am sorry o hear that you have been abused in the past by "fascists" and not at all surprised hat your advice is sought consantly.

If my endorsement of Borofergie's post or anyhing else I wrote appears contradictory or at all opposed to your post it was certainly not intentional and pprobably only results from increasing senility or the srange visual disortions I suffer from!
 

Caused by too many carbs? :wink:
 
I read a definition of a low carb diet on a web page recently that said low carb was less than 1g of carbs per pound of body weight which seems fairly sensible to me, so a man/woman weighing 20 stones would be considered to be on a low carb diet if they consumed less than 20 (stone) X 14 (lbs) = 280 g of carbs a day. A man/ woman weighing 10 stone could be said to be low carbing if he/she ate less than 10 X 14 = 140g carbs a day etc etc.

The extremeness of how much below that level is irrelevant. I used to say I didnt low carb because I ate 60g to 80g of carbs a day and felt intimidated and ridiculed by certain (now ex) members here who would tell me that low carbing was <50g. I now eat between 80 - 150g of carbs a day, I no longer count them so that is a guestimate, but I do call myself a low carber. I do hope this forum doesnt go back to the way it was 3 years or so ago :thumbdown:

What does it matter what someone else eats unless they try to insist that their way is the best/right/only way. I dont want anyones diet rammed down my throat, well not all the time I am able to chew for myself thank you very much :lolno:



As for the OP I imagine some diabetics are depressed just as some blind people are - just as some deaf people are - and just as some outwardly healthy people are, depression is not constrained to types it is a crippling state of mind that can affect anyone at any time it would seem.

There does seem to be some people who get extremely narrow minded, tunnel visioned and defensive about low carbing the same way some people get sucked into religious cults to the point where it causes depression, but thankfully most people are not that fanatical about heir diet.
 

That sounds a quite interesting thing. I would personally set the conversion at 0.5 or 0.75 per pound to more accurately reflect what most people would term low carb at least for diabetics. In any event as everyone including me seems to be promoting "eat to your meter" then it's as useful or not useful as anyone's else suggestions including my own 130g suggestion. I would just be concerned that people who could not afford a meter and strips would be eating at a too high level using the formula as its presented which is why I think the conversion should be set lower.

Sid Bonkers said:
The extremeness of how much below that level is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Once you are at a carb intake that gets you safe levels going below that is entirely optional. However what one person thinks as safe is not necessarily what another does so some may want to go below or above the safe level. So long as that choice has been made by giving the people concerned all the facts that effect what level of risk they are prepared to take the choice should be theirs.

Sid Bonkers said:
What does it matter what someone else eats unless they try to insist that their way is the best/right/only way. I dont want anyones diet rammed down my throat, well not all the time I am able to chew for myself thank you very much :lolno:
Click to expand...

Ramming some kind of diet dogma down people throats be it ULC or GI or whatever is plain wrong. Telling a Type 2 diabetic that in all likelihood they will need to reduce their starchy carbohydrate intake to achieve safe blood levels unless they want to go on loads of medication is not ramming a dietary viewpoint. It's simply telling them the truth.



Yes and they are just as extremely narrow minded, tunnel visioned and defensive as those in the NHS who push their starchy carb with every meal mantra. Hopefully both will soon become yesterdays people.
 

You keep saying that, but I don't see any of them active on the forum these days...
 
Hope not! Not sure I could manage on less!
 

No there aren't but some of us are sill living in fear that interesing discussions are about to be hi-jacked and curtailed because of fanaticism. A case of "have they really gone" I think!
 

I was not around at the time unbeliever but my son who is still a regular poster was so I have some knowledge. From what he explained to me both sides got what they deserved i.e. banned from the forum and I agree with him.
 

In the words of Clara Barton (the founder of the American Red Cross):
"I have an almost complete disregard of precedent, and a faith in the possibility of something better. It irritates me to be told how things have always been done. I defy the tyranny of precedent. I go for anything new that might improve the past."
 

What an absolutely brilliant viewpoint . It sums up everything that should be encouraged in all fields and disiplines :clap:
 
Catherinecherub said:-
"I used to give advice about diet to newly diagnosed but after receiving p.m.'s from some members that I was talking rubbish because it wouldn't work for them then I gave up on that idea and leave it to people who carry on repeating themselves and the excellent advice from Daisy. I do answer a lot of questions via p.m. on the G.I. approach as that seems to stop a lot of negativity and arguments that ensue about what I do to gain control."

Why the dig?
There's certain standard advice that's worth repeating. Daisy's post is repeated - it should be, it's good. If you think other posts that are repeated are wrong, you could say so. Otherwise, perhaps they're worth repeating as well. For a new member, it might be the first time they've seen it. If it helps them, surely that's good?
 


Ooh, for crying out loud..if I could I would BAN the term low carb!! What's wrong with lowER carb? It makes more sense as we are all agreed that we need to eat lower amounts of carb then we did pre-diagnosis, how many and in which manner is irrelevant because it's an individual thing for everyone.

Am I low carb now? Don't know and couldn't give a monkeys..really. Am I lowER carb? Yep, without a doubt. I don't count my carbs, probably should but I don't. Can't test either so am I up you-know-what creek without a paddle? Nope, common sense rules ok. Bread? Halved the amount I eat, one slice per day. Rice? likewise, mix it with cauli and can reduce it less painlessly that way. Pasta? a work in progress, that's what comes from having an Italian background but I can find the way that works for me, trying to add more salad to the plate and less pasta.

As for the depression..had it on and off for years alongside panic attacks, agoraphobia and anxiety, it has got nothing to do with my diagnosis. Like everyone, I get bad days and good days but who doesn't? Let's not read more into things than is necessary, just get on with supporting each other whether on the forum or by PM and get our own individual control uppermost in our minds.

Anyone that uses another persons diet to ridicule them and score points is poisonous as well as very, very sad. The past is the past and as much as some would like to see it resurrected, it's staying there...we're all too busy with the here and now.
8)
 
Thank you ladybird. Slapping everyone on their wrists to keep us all on the straight and narrow. Good for you.

Like you I would ban "Low Carb" it makes it sound like a diet in the true sense of the word rather than a means of controlling blood sugars. I would rather it were called something like a "Controlled Carbohydrate Regime" CCR rolls of the tongue and is far less emotive.

So as not to go too off topic then I could say I don't believe CCR causes depression.
 
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.…