Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 105

Thread: Carbohydrate is good for diabetes page 7

  1. #61
    NDF's Avatar
    NDF
    NDF is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    817
    FTIW, my grandfather was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes when he was about 65 years old. He never took medication for it and was able to stabilize his blood sugar. He ate a regular diet, diet but replaced any "white" carbs with whole wheat. He'd have a mix of oatmeal, bran, banana and a little honey for breakfast with his coffee with milk. For lunch he always had a sandwich on rye bread or soup made with potatoes or with less noodles than a usual serving of soup. For dinner he'd have meat, a vegetable and either potatoes or rice. He'd even have cake and icecream on special occasions, just small portions. He exercised every day. He was told that exercise and being a health weight were crucial in managing his blood sugar so that's what he focused on. He lost the extra weight he was carry and he'd walk the length of their driveway until he'd walked the prescribed amount (I think it was 30min). He managed his diabetes this way until he was 85.

    Excercise and healthy weight management are more important in managing Type 2 Diabetes than going low carb is. Low carb avoids dealing with the real problem which can be helped through exercise and not over or under eating any one food (not just carbs)

  2. #62
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    Frankly I don't hold your or Danny's opinion in high esteem. Go take some pathophysiology then we'll talk. For the record Type II diabetes is very easy to define as its a medical diagnosis that requires specific parameters be met.

    Type 2: Insulin resistance with insulin secretion deficiency. 90 - 95% of people who have diabetes have Type 2.
    Other specific types:

    Genetic defects in β-cell function
    Genetic defects in insulin action
    Exocrine pancreas diseases
    Endocrinopathies
    Drug- or chemical-induced
    Infections
    Other rare forms

    Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus:

    (Any finding falling within a positive criteria should be repeated on a subsequent day with another test in any criteria set: e.g., a random plasma glucose with symptoms, might be followed-up with a fasting plasma glucose.)

    Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥ 126 mg/dl (7.0 mmol/l) OR
    Symptoms (such as polyuria, polydipsia, unexplained weight loss) AND
    a random plasma glucose ≥ 200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l) OR
    Plasma glucose ≥ 200 mg/dl ( 11.1 mmol/l) 2 hours after a 75g glucose load OR
    A1C ≥ 6.5%.

    Categories of increased risk for diabetes (prediabetes):

    Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels: 100 to 125mg/dl (5.6 - 6.9mmol/l) [IFG]; OR
    2-h PG values in the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGIT)): 140 mg/dl to 199 mg/dl (7.8 - 11.0 mmol/l) [IGT]; OR
    A1C: 5.7 - 6.4%


    As you can see the causes are numerous but the "disease state" itself is specifically that of disrupted or inadequate hormone (see beta cell dysfunction, and defects in insulin action ect..) with resultant elevated blood sugars. You can theorize all you want, but you cant argue with the actually definition of a disease. Unless you wish to have that changed in which case I urge you to contact the various health agencies immediately and inform them their criteria are wrong.
    That's fine. I don't hold your opinion to high esteem either as you tend to be more interested in stirring the pot with drive-by posts than providing any useful information. I believe your narrow view of bloodwork is why we're in the pickle we're in. Clinicians today suck. They can't diagnose shit because they're obsessed with blood numbers and can't view the big picture. The human body needs to be viewed as a complex, intricate, functioning system, but instead they're obsessed with numbers and prescribing drugs based on said numbers. If I have a fasting BG of '99' and an A1c of '5.9' I'm fine, but if I have a fasting BG of '101' and an A1c of '6.1' I'm diabetic and need drug intervention. The clinician's obsession with numbers and inability to focus on the big picture is a huge contributor as to why we are getting worse and worse every single day as a society, not better. Where were they during the 20 years it took for the numbers to get bad? Oh, I wasn't flagged because I didn't hit a specific number where they couldn't prescribe a drug without getting potentially implicated for malpractice? The focus on health is greater than ever, yet we keep getting sicker and fatter. Our clinicians are worse than ever and don't understand the body, and your narrow view is why.

    Focus on the body as a functioning machine. Energy in/energy out. We can take in energy no problem, but we're having trouble with that energy being converted. Instead, it's being stored and not converted.

    Possibly the worst things blood tests have given us are "Total Cholesterol" and "TSH." TC tests have done far more harm than good, and using TSH to diagnose a thyroid condition is laughable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    Well if you say it that must make it true. Nope actually it don't.
    Damn right. You described yourself very well
    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 06-17-2013 at 11:54 AM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  3. #63
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    Hey, y'all! Let me toss this out there:

    I was pre-diabetic prior to PB. When I first adopted PB, my FBG went from 130 to the 90's. 'Great!' I thought, 'I'm cured!'

    Over the next 2 years of LC of approx 50g/day and going from 250 pounds to 165 pounds, my FBG crept back up to 120.

    Adding a couple potatoes and/or rice and some other starchy foods brought my FBG down to 100 or so. Adding a couple tablespoons of raw potato starch, a form of resistant starch, brought my FBG down to the 90's.

    Now, here's where it gets interesting.

    A common cure for T2D or pre-D, is weightloss. Lose fat--gain insulin sensitivity, or so the story goes.

    Strange thing, though. People get gastric bypass now just to cure their T2D. Glucose control is restored almost immediately, and before much fat is lost. The key is the calories restriction. Restrict calories to about 50% of normal intake and glucose control is restored--even if one eats loads of sugar or carbs, or performs an OGTT. They are insulin sensitive by all standard conventions.

    I was reading about a guy who promised a cure for T2D and pre-D with a vegan diet recently. Upon examination, his diet is only about 800kcal/day. And, yes, numerous diabetics are cured.

    I did some experimenting last week. Severely restricting calories for a day or two resulted in the lowest FBG I've seen--69 one morning, 72 the other. Eating normally, without any calorie restriction or counting, and my FBG has been in the 90's lately.

    My questions on the connection between calorie restriction and glucose control are these: Does it do any long-term good to restrict calories to a level where glucose is controllable? Does IF'ing play into this?

    I think in my case, early on when I was obese, I regained good glucose control because I was restricting calories by adopting the PB and cut out all processed stuff. Then as I approached a maintenance weight, my calorie requirement dropped, but food intake remained unchanged, along with the carb restrictions and glucose control once again was lost.

    I wonder if blood glucose could be used as a guideline for how much food a person should be eating, as opposed to on-line calorie calculators or weight. ie. if I eat 2500 cal/day and have an FBG of 120 vs 1800 cal/day and an FBG of 90.

    Any google search for 'calorie restriction and glucose control' or similar nets hundreds of hits--this is a well-known phenomenon...now, how to exploit it in a healthy manner...

  4. #64
    loafingcactus's Avatar
    loafingcactus is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    1,473
    Bernstein would say that giving your pancreas a rest may allow it to continue functioning at a better level. This is also why he recommends that insulin be more readily used and not kept to a last resort.
    In God we trust; all others must bring data. W. Edwards Deming
    Blogging at http://loafingcactus.com

  5. #65
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,537
    Quote Originally Posted by eKatherine View Post
    I am amazed at this statement. It is so far from reality. Type 2 diabetics are usually overweight and ordered to lose weight, which would help them, if they hadn't also been ordered to eat an even higher carb diet.
    Not true. People are usually overweight, then become Type 2 Diabetic. They generally drop weight, but when you're 70 lbs overweight and drop 15 lbs, you're still 55 lbs overweight. It's the chicken and the egg.

    http://blog.healthydiabetic.net/2012...ight-loss.aspx
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  6. #66
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,537
    Quote Originally Posted by NDF View Post
    Excercise and healthy weight management are more important in managing Type 2 Diabetes than going low carb is. Low carb avoids dealing with the real problem which can be helped through exercise and not over or under eating any one food (not just carbs)
    Yep.

    Type 2 Diabetes is an energy management disorder. Think of the body as the engine of a car, with 1,000 little mechanical parts working intricately to make the system work. Your food is your fuel. Energy goes in, and in a properly functioning system, the energy goes out. Type 2 Diabetes is a failure to convert said energy. Energy still goes in, but it isn't converted properly.

    Modern disease, in a very general sense, is a failure of the human metabolism. The fact that the American diet is highest in carbohydrate may actually be saving us due to the fats we choose to eat in greatest quantity. If we skewed our fat intake higher and consumed less sugar, I'd expect to see our condition get worse. The funny this is the large amount of sugar and sodium in processed foods is helping keep some of our thyroids afloat.
    Quote Originally Posted by loafingcactus View Post
    Bernstein would say that giving your pancreas a rest may allow it to continue functioning at a better level. This is also why he recommends that insulin be more readily used and not kept to a last resort.
    Why?

    I don't advocate grazing - humans aren't made for a constant intake of food, so letting all your hormones normalize is important. But why do people here fail to realize protein generates more insulin than carbohydrate on average? If you are eating less fruit for more meat, you are generating more insulin. The only way to give your "pancreas a rest" is to not eat at all. In that case, exercise more intermittent fasting. You could conceivably cut insulin secretion by eating more fruit in place of protein because fructose doesn't generate much insulin while BCAA's send insulin soaring.
    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 06-17-2013 at 12:10 PM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  7. #67
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,150
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    That's fine. I don't hold your opinion to high esteem either as you tend to be more interested in stirring the pot with drive-by posts than providing any useful information. I believe your narrow view of bloodwork is why we're in the pickle we're in. Clinicians today suck. They can't diagnose shit because they're obsessed with blood numbers and can't view the big picture. The human body needs to be viewed as a complex, intricate, functioning system, but instead they're obsessed with numbers and prescribing drugs based on said numbers. If I have a fasting BG of '99' and an A1c of '5.9' I'm fine, but if I have a fasting BG of '101' and an A1c of '6.1' I'm diabetic and need drug intervention. The clinician's obsession with numbers and inability to focus on the big picture is a huge contributor as to why we are getting worse and worse every single day as a society, not better. Where were they during the 20 years it took for the numbers to get bad? Oh, I wasn't flagged because I didn't hit a specific number where they couldn't prescribe a drug without getting potentially implicated for malpractice? The focus on health is greater than ever, yet we keep getting sicker and fatter. Our clinicians are worse than ever and don't understand the body, and your narrow view is why.

    Focus on the body as a functioning machine. Energy in/energy out. We can take in energy no problem, but we're having trouble with that energy being converted. Instead, it's being stored and not converted.

    Possibly the worst things blood tests have given us are "Total Cholesterol" and "TSH." TC tests have done far more harm than good, and using TSH to diagnose a thyroid condition is laughable.


    Damn right. You described yourself very well
    K. What I believe is that you are following a fringe scientist (and thats fringe to an already fringe group of ourselves) that is working off of very reductionistic biochemical analysis then somehow claiming a TOE. I don't agree, but its up to you zach, matt stone, danny, and derp to do your thing.

    You call my post a "drive by" just to "stir the pot"..... I disagree. I gave very specific information that some might find useful. In many instances the first thing you do is define the terms being used. I supplied the definition of what we were discussing. I'm sorry you don't like that definition and take issue with us having points of cutoff.....its a reference range. Deal with it. These are the the parameters that fit the diagnosis. Regulations mandate you meet certain criteria before giving a particular diagnosis. Not my fault. I agree that you could look at a fringe reading and either find fault or find it to be nonpathological DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. And in the end those circumstances are going to determine much more than the numbers do on their own. That is why history, lifestyle, other tests all are taken into account. Not JUST one set of numbers.

    Warning....Strawman ahead (actually and most the fist paragraph)....."Possibly the worst things blood tests have given us are "Total Cholesterol" and "TSH." TC tests have done far more harm than good, and using TSH to diagnose a thyroid condition is laughable."

    Nope, you don't have to believe me when I say that those are the diagnostic criteria. Honestly I don't know what you are arguing. I didn't post anything controversial, but please be my guest to verify it on your own.

    Actually energy and hormone signaling are obviously dependent on each other so its not one or the other. But, when you say "diabetes is....." then you have to recognize there is an actual definition. Perhaps you should start your whole rant with "I believe diabetes is a product of......." That might save you the trouble of me doing drive by posts to point out that everything you just said is simply your opinion.
    Last edited by Neckhammer; 06-17-2013 at 12:58 PM.

  8. #68
    WeldingHank's Avatar
    WeldingHank is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Lawrence,Ma
    Posts
    578
    Having been to both sides of type II diabetes (and back.) I can confirm a lot of chocotaco's info. I started LCHF, taking Krav maga (very intense, explosive exercise) and lost a ton of weight at first (150ish-lbs). Went from fasting BGs of 130 to 85. Great, but I wanted to get better, stronger and faster at Krav, so I reluctantly started having more carbohydrate, 75g then up to 175g (potatoes, and sweet plantains) and damn did I get stronger and faster. Then, I went and saw my doctor and to my surprise, fasting BG now 79! I personally think that activity levels have something to do with it, even more so than actual carb count. Oh, I still lost weight, but way more pant sizes/shirt sizes in 50lbs than the first 150g.

  9. #69
    NDF's Avatar
    NDF
    NDF is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by WeldingHank View Post
    Having been to both sides of type II diabetes (and back.) I can confirm a lot of chocotaco's info. I started LCHF, taking Krav maga (very intense, explosive exercise) and lost a ton of weight at first (150ish-lbs). Went from fasting BGs of 130 to 85. Great, but I wanted to get better, stronger and faster at Krav, so I reluctantly started having more carbohydrate, 75g then up to 175g (potatoes, and sweet plantains) and damn did I get stronger and faster. Then, I went and saw my doctor and to my surprise, fasting BG now 79! I personally think that activity levels have something to do with it, even more so than actual carb count. Oh, I still lost weight, but way more pant sizes/shirt sizes in 50lbs than the first 150g.
    Bingo

  10. #70
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    8,724
    Once diabetics of any type get to the point that they are losing weight inexplicably it is because their pancreas has ceased producing insulin or produces only a negligible amount. There is no insulin to resist anymore.
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Highest squat: 167.5 x 2. Current Deadlift: 190 x 3

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •