Diabetes

[ERD50]

You can lose weight on any diet, but recent studies show higher compliance and better health results with low carb diets vs low fat diets. Humans vary in insulin sensitivity by a factor of ~6, and insulin sensitivity is the primary thing that determines how someone's body will respond to an infusion of carbohydrate.

In the end, it is very easy to limit carbohydrate intake so you can experience what this means to you. For most people (~70%) limiting carbohydrate intake will improve health.

That's a much more balanced viewpoint, IMO. IIRC, the results in favor of low carb were pretty slight, but they were there.

Whether it is 'very easy to limit carbohydrate intake' - I guess it is an individual thing. I know plenty of people who went whole-hog into the low-carb thing, got a religious kind of fervor about it, and were not able to stick to it and lose weight (they couldn't stick to other diets either, to be fair). These low carb books have been on best seller lists and got plenty of press, yet obesity rates still rise. So I'm not sure it's all that easy. But it may be relatively easy for some.

In another thread, I think haha said something to the effect that this is all very complex and inter-related and likely genetics play into what works for one versus another, and that we will probably all be dead before it is well understood. That may very well be true.

I never bought into the "low fat" craze, and now we seem to be getting data that 'good fats' aren't the devil they were made out to be. So until I feel we have better data, I'm a little skeptical of any diet that cuts down a major food group that drastically. The exception for me being limiting refined carbs - I haven't seen any support for those, can't recall any serious 'eat a pound of table sugar at each meal and lose weight!' promotions.


-ERD50

 

[harley]

The Donut Diet Review | How It works, Pros/Cons, In-Depth Reviews

 

[Calgary_Girl]

So until I feel we have better data, I'm a little skeptical of any diet that cuts down a major food group that drastically.

-ERD50

I agree with this completely. This is part of the reason that I can't hop onto the Dukan Diet bandwagon. Any plan that requires you to cut out entire food groups raises a red flag with me.

 

[rgarling]

.... So until I feel we have better data, I'm a little skeptical of any diet that cuts down a major food group that drastically. The exception for me being limiting refined carbs - I haven't seen any support for those, can't recall any serious 'eat a pound of table sugar at each meal and lose weight!' promotions.
-ERD50

As far as your body is concerned, there is little difference between what are called 'good' carbs and 'refined' carbs. They both spike your blood sugar, however, there is a slight slowing of absorption with the good carbs. Read this blog entry about a guy's experiment of one with a glucose meter: Fat Head » Hope Warshaw’s Pepsi Challenge

By the way, for people who really want to see how their body reacts to carbs, buy a glucose meter and check for yourself. You will probably be surprised. If you do this, you want to eat in such a way to keep your blood glucose below 140 at the spike. To do that you will likely have to cut way back on carbs.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

I think Dr. Richard Bernstein (in the book I cited above) said it best when he said "eating fat does not make you fat any more than eating tomatoes makes you red". IMO, much of this is socio-economic. Low-carb diets (which tend to be high-protein) are considerably more expensive than low-fat, high-carb diets.

 

[haha]

The Donut Diet Review | How It works, Pros/Cons, In-Depth Reviews

As great as this sounds, I am going with the Flex Belt, also featured on this site.

My problem with gyms is the Happy Hours that follow. I feel so pumped no way can I go home, so it's off to the bar before I head home.

Flex belt will save me some time- just strap it on, and head for the bar thus cutting out the gym time. I'll do the oyster, sashimi and Champagne Diet.

Ha

 

[W2R]

As great as this sounds, I am going with the Flex Belt, also featured on this site.

My problem with gyms is the Happy Hours that follow. I feel so pumped no way can I go home, so it's off to the bar before I head home.

Flex belt will save me some time- just strap it on, and head for the bar thus cutting out the gym time. I'll do the oyster, sashimi and Champagne Diet.

Ha

I admit that we usually go straight to a nearby restaurant for lunch, after the gym. I'd love the gumbo, po'boy, and iced tea diet.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

As far as your body is concerned, there is little difference between what are called 'good' carbs and 'refined' carbs. They both spike your blood sugar, however, there is a slight slowing of absorption with the good carbs. Read this blog entry about a guy's experiment of one with a glucose meter: Fat Head » Hope Warshaw’s Pepsi Challenge

This is quite interesting. It suggests that those following low-carb diets (including diabetics) need not have a "no no" list of foods. Rather, strive to limit the total grams of carbs in a meal to some number (say 30) and just try not to exceed this number. For example, go ahead and have baked potato with dinner - just eat 3 ounces (about 15 gms of carbs) instead of 8.

 

[rgarling]

This is quite interesting. It suggests that those following low-carb diets (including diabetics) need not have a "no no" list of foods. Rather, strive to limit the total grams of carbs in a meal to some number (say 30) and just try not to exceed this number. For example, go ahead and have baked potato with dinner - just eat 3 ounces (about 15 gms of carbs) instead of 8.

This is true. An individual can determine how many carbs his body can safely deal with by using a glucose meter and taking a 1 hour reading and a 2 hour reading. If your readings are too high, cut back on the carbs a little more. Since all (digestible) carbs create approximately the same response, all you have to do is keep track of the total (and not the type i.e. fruit, vegetable, complex, simple). Also, depending on how your metabolism is doing, a little exercise near meal time gives your body more 'room' in the muscle tissue to store glycogen, so you might be able to raise your limit a little IF you exercise.... another experiment to try.

Meters are cheap these days, and once you do the tests, you will no longer need to guess about what makes sense for YOU. Once you figure that out, you could pass the meter on to a friend.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

This is true. An individual can determine how many carbs his body can safely deal with by using a glucose meter and taking a 1 hour reading and a 2 hour reading. If your readings are too high, cut back on the carbs a little more. Since all (digestible) carbs create approximately the same response, all you have to do is keep track of the total (and not the type i.e. fruit, vegetable, complex, simple).

Exactly. Also, in the context of a meal, fat and protein slow down the digestion of carbs, so the total gms/meal of carbs is the relevant number. Within that number, have whatever source of carbs you want. IOW, focus on glycemic load (which can be controlled with portion size) rather than glycemic index. I think this approach makes it more likely that one can stick to a low-carb diet over the long term.

 

[TromboneAl]

I'm a little skeptical of any diet that cuts down a major food group that drastically.

I've heard this argument before, and it simply does not make any logical sense. It's fine to argue that you don't think a particular type of food is bad for you, or that some foods within a group are OK, but to say that "you shouldn't avoid an entire food group" sounds like some politically correct hogwash.

If you follow this argument, then you shouldn't completely eliminate all rat poisons, because that would be drastically reducing a particular class of food. You shouldn't avoid all igneous rocks. Make sure that you are skeptical of any diet that drastically cuts down on industrial solvents!

If you want to say that you think that there are some carbs that don't negatively impact your health, great, but don't use the argument that we must not be biased against an entire food group.

If there were a carbohydrate-American anti-defamation league, that might be necessary, but there isn't. Oh, wait a second, there is: it's called the American Department of Agriculture! Maybe that's where this argument comes from.

 

[GregLee]

I've heard this argument before, and it simply does not make any logical sense.

A balanced diet is very widely recommended. I just searched on "balanced diet", and among many others, found this:

A healthy diet needs to have a balance of macronutrients (fats, proteins, and carbohydrates), calories to support energy needs, and micronutrients to meet the needs for human nutrition without inducing toxicity or excessive weight gain from consuming excessive amounts.
Healthy diet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, just because many authorities recommend a thing, that doesn't make it good necessarily. But on the other hand, it's not irrational to follow the majority opinion.

 

[ERD50]

I'm a little skeptical of any diet that cuts down a major food group that drastically.

I've heard this argument before, and it simply does not make any logical sense. It's fine to argue that you don't think a particular type of food is bad for you, or that some foods within a group are OK, but to say that "you shouldn't avoid an entire food group" sounds like some politically correct hogwash.

T-Al, I chose my words carefully - note that I said that (emph this time) "I'm a little skeptical" - I didn't use absolutes, because I don't know. There is nothing wrong with the logic, based on history it is reasonable to be skeptical - what the data tells us may eventually clear it up, but it isn't illogical to be skeptical at this point.

I know that you think the data is convincing, but I just don't.

I gave you the context - I'm skeptical of the "low fat" craze also, so that leaves me a little skeptical of any diet that cuts down a major food group that drastically.

edit/add: ' sounds like some politically correct hogwash' I can't recall ever being accused of being 'politically correct!'

If you follow this argument, then you shouldn't completely eliminate all rat poisons, because that would be drastically reducing a particular class of food.

Bad example T-Al Because some people absolutely should not completely eliminate all rat poisons. My FIL is on Wharfarin, a drug that IS rat poison!

Warfarin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warfarin (also known under the brand names Coumadin, Jantoven, Marevan, Lawarin, Waran, and Warfant) is an anticoagulant. It is most likely to be the drug popularly referred to as a "blood thinner," ....

It was initially marketed as a pesticide against rats and mice and is still popular for this purpose,...

If you want to say that you think that there are some carbs that don't negatively impact your health, great, but don't use the argument that we must not be biased against an entire food group.

But I'm not saying either thing. I'm saying I don't know, and I choose to be skeptical of big changes from what I do now. Others should do as they see fit.

But these threads are educational. I still have a lot to learn. I get a fasting glucose level every 6 months as part of the tests my Doc wants for my Statin prescription. The readings are generally in the mid 90's, but I'm seeing that perhaps the level several hours after a meal is more important. I have no diabetes in my family, and those readings aren't a red flag, so I'm not overly concerned at this point. But I might get that meter that rgarling linked to, and take some tests, just to get a better handle on this. I'm actually a bit more concerned about DW, she had (I forget the medical term), but the kind of diabetes or sugar problems that some women get during pregnancy. And she had a grandmother with diabetes.

-ERD50

 

[haha]

I'm actually a bit more concerned about DW, she had (I forget the medical term), but the kind of diabetes or sugar problems that some women get during pregnancy. And she had a grandmother with diabetes.

-ERD50

Gestational diabetes.

Ha

 

[TromboneAl]

I've had a problem with measuring your blood glucose and making conclusions: Those meters are very unreliable and/or other circumstances can effect the readings.

For example, here are results that I got from testing three different breakfasts.

(Carbquik waffles have 2 net carbs per serving, and I ate them with 0-carb syrup (Walden Farms), butter and home-made whipped cream. The hamburger was just a patty, no bun.)

The bacon and hamburger breakfast should not have raised my blood sugar much at all. So maybe the meter readings weren't reliable or there was some kind of dawn effect, but I found it very hard to make conclusions based on these readings. I once measured the same drop of blood with two different meters and got readings of 90 and 101, respectively.

I would have pursued it further, but I got tired of fingering my, I mean, pricking my finger.

 

[haha]

I've had a problem with measuring your blood glucose and making conclusions: Those meters are very unreliable and/or other circumstances can effect the readings.

For example, here are results that I got from testing three different breakfasts.



The bacon and hamburger breakfast should not have raised my blood sugar much at all. So maybe the meter readings weren't reliable or there was some kind of dawn effect, but I found it very hard to make conclusions based on these readings. I once measured the same drop of blood with two different meters and got readings of 90 and 101, respectively.

I would have pursued it further, but I got tired of fingering my, I mean, pricking my finger.

I have noticed the same thing. Even the manufacturers admit that the meters are very unreliable.

A few days ago I spent 10 strips on a prolonged test. What I discovered if anything, was that given enough time protein does in fact raise blood sugar, gently but persistantly over 4-6 hours.

I think these tests will tell you if a meal is truly messing you up- like spiking up to 150-160 or more. But it seems hard to do any fine tuning, if that was a goal.

Ha

 

[TromboneAl]

Speaking of meters, I expect that someday you'll be able to buy a relatively cheap device that will clip onto your ear lobe, and continuously measure your blood sugar level. You'll download your data to your computer, and get a plot of your levels throughout the day.

That should revolutionize diabetes detection and treatment, and could swing the tide towards low-carb eating ("Wow, look what happened when I ate an apple and a banana!").

 

[ERD50]

I've had a problem with measuring your blood glucose and making conclusions: Those meters are very unreliable and/or other circumstances can effect the readings.

For example, here are results that I got from testing three different breakfasts.

...

(Carbquik waffles have 2 net carbs per serving, and I ate them with 0-carb syrup (Walden Farms), butter and home-made whipped cream. The hamburger was just a patty, no bun.)

The bacon and hamburger breakfast should not have raised my blood sugar much at all. So maybe the meter readings weren't reliable or there was some kind of dawn effect, but I found it very hard to make conclusions based on these readings. I once measured the same drop of blood with two different meters and got readings of 90 and 101, respectively.

I would have pursued it further, but I got tired of fingering my, I mean, pricking my finger.

I'm barely at Kindergarten level when it comes to understanding all this glucose/insulin/diet interactions stuff, but... from a logical viewpoint, it strikes me as odd that you attribute these readings to meter inaccuracy. Why not consider that it is showing you that your glucose levels are increasing? You seem to rule out that possibility.

In the link rgarling provided, the blogger mentioned that these meters may be expected to have readings that are off by as much as 10 points (maybe more if they are garage sale seconds ). Your two meters with a delta of 11 points could be just 5.5points each from absolute (or many other combos). Now, I don't know the inner-workings of these things, but I have a lot of experience with measurement systems, and many systems that may be pretty 'rough' in absolute accuracy terms, are usually much, much better when it comes to their relative accuracy.

IOW, a 160# person may get on a scale and it reads 176#, that is 10% high in absolute terms. Yet, if you hand that person a 10# weight, the scale will very likely increase by about 10#-11# (depending if the error delta was mainly a fixed offset or a linearity deviance). It isn't likely that it is going to stay flat, or go down by 10# - so a graph of that increase would give a very good reflection of what is happening, even if the absolute scale is off by 10%.

It seems that I'm seeing reports that excursions above 140 can cause permanent damage over time. So, if I do get a meter, my approach would be to see what the relative readings look like with different foods. If I saw readings above 130, this would tell me that if my meter was reading low, I might be going above 140 absolute, and that could signal me do further investigation.

You can get plenty of good information from very inaccurate tools, if you know how to deal with the inaccuracy.

Since I'm at Kindergarten level on blood glucose, I wondered about protein/fat not increasing blood sugar levels. This quick google came up with this, which may or may not be credible:

Low-Carb for You: Protein Intake and Blood Glucose Levels

Lex Rooker is a very dedicated and meticulous individual who posts at the Raw Paleo Forum. .... After he ate a meal consisting solely of meat and fat, his blood glucose would rise about 25 mg/dl, returning to baseline in about four hours.

I have no idea if that is typical, it's just the first thing related that I found.

Speaking of meters, I expect that someday you'll be able to buy a relatively cheap device that will clip onto your ear lobe, and continuously measure your blood sugar level. You'll download your data to your computer, and get a plot of your levels throughout the day.

That should revolutionize diabetes detection and treatment, and could swing the tide towards low-carb eating ("Wow, look what happened when I ate an apple and a banana!").

Or maybe they will say "Hmmm, must be the darn meter!"

-ERD50

 

[haha]

Since I'm at Kindergarten level on blood glucose, I wondered about protein/fat not increasing blood sugar levels. This quick google came up with this, which may or may not be credible:

Low-Carb for You: Protein Intake and Blood Glucose Levels

I-ERD50

In normal meabolism, proteins do not pass whole across the gut. They are cleaved to amino acids, which the body then uses to re-synthesize proteins needed for tissue repair, regeneration and growth. There is no storehouse where excess amino acids can be kept, so excesses are metabolized to release energy, just as carbohydrates are metabolized, and in fact can then be reassembled into metabolic intermediate substances which can be synthesized into glucose, in a process known as gluconeogenesis. So, given a little time dietary amino acids can be de-aminated and transformed into blood glucose, among other things.

So yes, there is no doubt that dietary protein can contribute to the glucose supply in the body, and given a somewhat sluggish insulin response into a rise in blood gluconse levels.

Ha

 

[rescueme]

Speaking of meters, I expect that someday you'll be able to buy a relatively cheap device that will clip onto your ear lobe, and continuously measure your blood sugar level.

There already is:

GlucoWatch G2 Biographer - P990026/S0008

Not cheap at this point, but who knows what the future will bring?

 

[TromboneAl]

Interesting! I guess they come to about $5K per year when you figure in the cost of the disposable sensors. I'll wait for the Casio model.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

My thoughts on T-AL's experiment:

First of all, it appears to me that T-Al's results are well within the accuracy of the meter (10% I believe), so it is virtually impossible to draw any hard conclusions from his charts, all of which BTW are well within the normal (non-diabetic) range.

Additionally, the carb difference between his meals is quite small (only a few grams). According to Dr. Bernstein, a 150 lb male whose pancreas makes no insulin whatsoever would experience an increase of 5 mg/dl for each gram of carbohydrates he ate. It seems to me, a non-diabetic person's insulin response can increase or decrease rapidly enough to mask these small differences to the point that they are virtually unmeasurable. In fact, I would venture to guess that if T-Al were to repeat these tests, the results would likely be qualitatively different (i.e. the bacon and hamburger might raise the blood sugar less than the others). In addition to any meter inaccuracy, there are also residual effects from what he ate the previous evening, or the amount of exercise he did the previous day, etc. It's virtually impossible to run a controlled experiment since there are so many independent variables.

As I see it, the only way to attempt to do this experiment would be to eat bacon and hamburger for breakfast every day for a week and collect the data, then eat one of the other breakfasts for a week, etc., and aggregate all the data. Then perhaps these other variables would average out to the point that the results might agree with one's intuition. Even then, the carb differences in the different meals T-Al ate are so small, the results may still be indistinguishable.

 

[TromboneAl]

I agree.

I did conclude from that test that Carbquik waffles are a reasonable thing for a low-carber to eat. It would have been interesting to see what I'd get with a normal waffle and real maple syrup.

 

[ERD50]

It would have been interesting to see what I'd get with a normal waffle and real maple syrup.

Personally, I'd be more interested in what a meal that was more 'balanced' in complex carbs, protein and fat would do - something w/o so much refined carbs (maple syrup is pretty extreme). Again, I'm kindergarten level on this, but I think most all the various sources would expect a pure sugar hit like Maple Syrup to produce a spike in blood sugar. I don't think the ADA is recommending piling maple syrup on a white flour waffle?

Maybe something like a whole wheat waffle, butter and a little fresh fruit on top, with bacon, coffee and an egg?


Or maybe you're actually looking to produce a spike, just to see how the meter responds? Like a test case?

-ERD50

 

[haha]

If someone wants to know whether s/he is carb intolerant or perhaps diabetic, but do not want to get diagnosed and forever banned from health insurance at reasonable rates, just drink a Coke and check at 30',60',90', and 120'.

If you just want to know how you are handling your current carb load, and are sure you will be testing the most challenging meals that you eat, something like Al does seems well suited.

I would drink the Coke, then get serious if the curve jumped up very high. A young healthy person with no carb intolerance can usually handle a big jolt of carb well.

I would like to comment on the issue of "balance". IMO it is bogus. Do you attempt to balance your virtuous acts with evil ones? The nice things you say to your wife with nasty things?

There may be reasons to eat carbohydrates, but if so they should be positive attributes of carbohydrates, not just some contrived and abstract issue of "balance".