Who has had depression due to low carbing?

[Grazer]

Manic depression, bipolar disorder, is not something to be flippant about.

There's a difference between being flippant about an illness and making light about someones post. No lectures needed. No confrontation needed.

 

[Unbeliever]

Thanks Phoenix. That is very interesting . Of course these discussions have to be fairly superficial . I suppose , as with so much else , it is a matter of accepting a certain degree of depression - goes with the territory and your explanation of the effect of high carbs on the brain was very clear even .to me

Of course there are different types and causes of depression so we have to once again find a balance. Perhaps for most of us here being able to control the condition ourselves by diet and exercise makes us feel less depressed and this can override he other sort of depression caused by such a diet .

When I was taking large amounts of medication which caused me feel exremely hungry I was very depressed because
I had never been used to eating large meals and certainly not large amounts of carbs and knew that this unnatural hunger could never be satisfied. Not even by a whole box of of Cadbury's flakes :lol: I thought I ws fated to be cold and hungry all the time for ever.
When I sarted to get some control by LCing [sorry] I started to feel better even while still taking the medication.

Now I am only depressed when having to see HCPs which is yet anoher sort of depression I know.I

So there is probab;y some truth in the original premise but many other factors have to be considered? Sounds about the same as everything else.. We have probably all sufffered from depression as a result of low carbing at some time. but is transitory in most of us here.I can accept that.

 

[catherinecherub]

The Australian study mentioned by Hana found more sustained improvement in mood in the non low carb dieters ...

Are there long term studies to show higher rates of depression occurring in countries where the carb / fat / protien ratio is skewed towards diet being low(er) carb? That would be interesting to see. If you previously had a sweet tooth and got the serotonin hit I can understand why depression could result short term but that could be treatable by meds, cognitive behaviour therapy or simply telling people eating 85%+ chocolate is fine. Wouldn't serotonin levels stabilise in the medium and long term anyway once the sugar carb cravings subside? It would also depend on how well the person was progressing. If they were seeing positive results in terms of their condition, weight loss etc wouldn't that increase their serotonin levels. Lots of things effect a persons mood not just what they eat.

It is not just the serotonin levels, there are others involved namely noropinephrine and dopamine to consider with depression. A chocolate bar is only a quick fix for someone who is feeling down due to immediate circumstances and the feeling doesn't last long. They have to learn to cope if the situation arises again or they will increase their chocolate consumption to feel good for longer.
This article goes part way to explain why some people are more prone to depression than others.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles ... depression

 

[lucylocket61]

Are there any figures to show how many people with Diabetes, who do not low carb, have depression?

I know I went into panic/depressed mode initially with my diagnosis. And as that article Catherinecherub linked to points out, feeling out of control can lead to depression, and taking control can help it.

 

[phoenix]

Are there long term studies to show higher rates of depression occurring in countries where the carb / fat / protien ratio is skewed towards diet being low(er) carb? That would be interesting to see.

Irreverently (and with some stereotying) I immediately thought of glum,low carb inuits sitting in the cold and contrasted them with relaxed but high carbing Kitavans on their South Sea Island(no contest in my opinion :lol: )
Seriously, I haven't read of any such study.
Naturally there are a lot of things that influence mood, and reward pathways can be excited or inhibited by different things, as you say not just food. (if you want to see a rather 'fun' animation on how different substances affect the reward pathways in the brain have a look at http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/ ... mouse.html . The only legal one is alcohol, pity they didn't put in chocolate :lol: but it gives an idea of the complexity and perhaps explains a bit about what neurotransmitters do.
Food plays a very big part in our lives, from feasting to fasting and it's hard to disentangle the many factors both social and physiological.
Being able to eat outside the home with friends or the extended family, particularly in cultures where eating some of everything is important can lead to some diets causing exclusion and hence depression (Slama, suggests that on the older restrictive diets French diabetics were either pariahs at the table or they 'broke' their diets )
(and I'm not doing a Phd on carbs in the diet and depression... good subject though)

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Incidentally a commonly accepted definition of low carb is 50g or less per day.
I don't have the reference, but the way the Amount of carb considered necessary was calculated originally is an eye opener.

Commonly accepted? By whom Hana? It is statements like this IMO that started all the trouble here 3 or 4 years ago when the forum was split by a faction who insisted just this, that low carb meant >50g of carbs a day, and is the exact reason I mentioned in my earlier post about my not considering myself a low carber when I joined this forum, all because a small fanatical band of now thankfully mostly banned members failure to understand that low means fewer or less than the norm, or the average, low doesnt start where a few fanatics say it starts.

After the "to low carb you must eat less than 50g of carbs a day" comes the "if you dont low carb you must high carb and that means loads of meds and eating loads of carbs". Well actually Hana there are many levels of low carb mostly higher than the level you choose and I am a low carber despite what you and some others may think.

Please lets not go down this road again...

 

[borofergie]

Commonly accepted by whom Hana? It is statements like this IMO that started all the trouble here 3 or 4 years ago when the forum was split by a faction who insisted just this, that low carb meant >50g of carbs a day

Exactly: 3 or 4 years ago. Let it go man.

Don't keep fighting a long forgotten battle that almost none of the current members are interested in. :thumbdown:

Can't we just leave it to the Mods to moderate the forum?

low doesnt start where a few fanatics say it starts.

Where are these fanatics?

 

[ladybird64]

T'aint going to happen Sid, there's enough people here who don't have an agenda to stop it from happening.

Definition is in the eye of the beholder methinks.

 

[Anonymous]

Incidentally a commonly accepted definition of low carb is 50g or less per day.
I don't have the reference, but the way the Amount of carb considered necessary was calculated originally is an eye opener.

Commonly accepted? By whom Hana? It is statements like this IMO that started all the trouble here 3 or 4 years ago when the forum was split by a faction who insisted just this, that low carb meant >50g of carbs a day, and is the exact reason I mentioned in my earlier post about my not considering myself a low carber when I joined this forum, all because a small fanatical band of now thankfully mostly banned members failure to understand that low means fewer or less than the norm, or the average, low doesnt start where a few fanatics say it starts.

After the [i]"to low carb you must eat less than 50g of carbs a day"[/i] comes the "if you dont low carb you must high carb and that means loads of meds and eating loads of carbs". Well actually Hana there are many levels of low carb mostly higher than the level you choose and I am a low carber despite what you and some others may think.

Please lets not go down this road again...

I am certain there are people on here that eat more than 50g a day that say they are low carbers. I have never seen anyone disagree with that.

 

[borofergie]

I am certain there are people on here that eat more than 50g a day that say they are low carbers. I have never seen anyone disagree with that.

Me neither...

 

[Pneu]

OK I am going to say this once before I let moderator kitty out of the bag...

The majority of the posters on this forum today were not around when 'carb wars' erupted... and even though we have some quite vocal members reference low carbohydrate they are by no means 'fanatical' in the way that Eddie and the like were. In fact the majority of these people recommend a number of different approaches and mostly don't recommend 'low carb' but recommend 'reduced carb'. So perhaps we could all be a little more adult about our posts and rather than instantly apply the old animosities to anything that has 'carb' in it.

That said neither do not I see the reason why there has to be a 'defined' value for low carb either... we are all different and to put an blanket figure of this is low carb is stupid... if a 45kg women eats 50g of carb a day and a 90kg man eats 80g of carb a day who is doing the lowest carbs? a blanket figure of x carbs / day is unhelpful.

I like to think we have a bit more of a relaxed approach to moderating these days.. and in my opinion that's a good thing.. we are all adults and can make decisions.. certainly from my point of view unless things get personal or totally ridiculous I don't see the problem with constructive debate / argument. But that does mean that people need to perhaps think a little more before they post..

This thread had a lot of interesting information lets not derail it please.

 

[xyzzy]

I actually take this thread and possible links between low(er) carb and depression very seriously as I have suffered from bouts of depression and anxiety attacks on and off since I was a teenager. I have learnt to "self monitor" over the years and have learnt to recognise symptoms that I know if I don't do anything about will lead me down a dark path so I need to be very careful of anything that can start things off.

I really can appreciate that in some people a swap from a highly satisfying high carb or high sugar diet to a low(er) carb or even a low GI "healthy" diet could easily cause depression. I would argue it's the change and the removal of "nice" things that would cause the problem and not grams of carbs. I obviously have no research to back that up but its just my opinion.

I really would like to make my position in this carb debate very clear so that there can be no misunderstanding. First I agree with Sid that diet fanatics of any kind should not be allowed to return to this forum but as Stephen said yesterday I don't see anyone posting who is a fanatic. I see a number of people who are all trying to push the "eat to the meter" mantra from varying viewpoints.

I agree with all posters who have said the "eat to the meter" approach is best. However as ladybird has said some people can't afford to do that so recommending a "play it safe" carb level of 120 - 150g seems to me no different than the nice 8.5 blood sugar recommendation.

I would dearly love the NHS to adopt that 120 - 150g recommendation as I would a 7.8 safe limit. I don't see that I am some VLC diet fanatic in doing that I am just trying move the NHS establishment view into the 21st century and to hold that NHS establishment and its employees who resist that inevitable change to account. I think as a tax payer I deserve to be given the most up to date treatment available and not treatment based on 40 year old research. Other countries have updated themselves why can't the UK?

Again on GI. I really have no problem with this especially if you are a Type 1 diabetic or a Type 2 on insulin or a Type 2 who has to take insulin substitute meds like Byetta. In those cases where no or very little pancreatic function exists then a good healthy GI diet is undoubtedly as good a choice to make as any other healthy diet.

However in Type 2's who have pancreatic function and do not want to go on the NHS drugs escalator I simply believe carbs should take priority over GI especially for the newly diagnosed who need to get their levels back to safety as quickly as possible. In these cases there is overwhelming evidence from around the world that drastically reducing carbs and especially the starchy ones works effectively to do this. Once back in safety then dependent on how much function is left and how many meds they are willing to take a person has the right to choose whatever diet they want be it VLC, LC or GI based but the key thing should be to keep in safety.

As I said to Sid yesterday the only issue with that is that some people have different idea's as to what safety means. For me it's 7.8 after 1 hours and 6.5 after 2, for others its 7.8 after 2 and others its 8.5 after 2 and others don't care that much. There has to be some target level for "eat to your meter" or else we're all just doing what the prevailing NHS establishment view is - no need to test because people don't stick to safety anyway. At the moment the official NICE guide line states 8.5 BUT that's not what many T2's are told at NHS clinics or by DSN's or other HCP's my local clinic says "just try to be under 12 IF YOU CAN". I believe I have every right to highlight that and spotlight NHS establishment and the employees who push it for saying it.

Finally I believe the NHS is one of the greatest institutions the world has ever produced but that doesn't excuse it when it gets things so horribly wrong. Like everything else it should be held to account and to change it ways once those ways have been proven so conclusively to be wrong.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

I am certain there are people on here that eat more than 50g a day that say they are low carbers. I have never seen anyone disagree with that.

Me neither...

You both obviously missed Hana's post then, never mind here it is again

Incidentally a commonly accepted definition of low carb is 50g or less per day.

 

[borofergie]

You both obviously missed Hana's post then, never mind here it is again

Incidentally a commonly accepted definition of low carb is 50g or less per day.

Lots of people have offered a defintion of "low-carb" on this thread, including both you and me. You are the only one calling any of them fanatics. :thumbdown:

(...and Hana didn't say that anyone consuming more than 50g a day can't call themselves a low-carber. Just sayin').

 

[Anonymous]

I am certain there are people on here that eat more than 50g a day that say they are low carbers. I have never seen anyone disagree with that.

Me neither...

You both obviously missed Hana's post then, never mind here it is again

Incidentally a commonly accepted definition of low carb is 50g or less per day.

I think you need to read what I wrote again Sid. Could you point out which forum members have been told they are not low carbing when they say they are? I mean today`s members, not someone who has been banned years ago.

Thanks.

 

[phoenix]

Xyzz, I would like to disagree with several of the points you mention in your post.
However, this would derail the thread further, which was about depression and low carbing rather than the other things you mention.
And now for some gardening :lol: .

 

[xyzzy]

No problem Phoenix why not PM me privately with your concerns and we'll take the discussion offline. Don't have a problem with that. Off to walk the dogs.

 

[noblehead]

And now for some gardening :lol: .

Just finished mine before the rain arrives :thumbup:

 

[Unbeliever]

I just read the "carborexia " article Borofergie mentioned earlier. It does not mention diabetes but does mention some of the issues we have been discussing here.
The author lost weight through anxiey at a difficult time in her life, liked he result regarding her weight and adopted a low carb die as it is "trendy". She claims to have developed he dreaded "carborexia"

Nothing new perhaps but might be interesing if you come across it. Its in the "You" magazine.
Made me smile as it was so apposite .

 

[Grazer]

I am certain there are people on here that eat more than 50g a day that say they are low carbers. I have never seen anyone disagree with that.

Me neither...

You both obviously missed Hana's post then, never mind here it is again

Incidentally a commonly accepted definition of low carb is 50g or less per day.

The two statements don't contradict each other in the slightest.