The Low Carb Diabetic

Promoting a low carb high fat lifestyle for the safe control of diabetes. Eat whole fresh food, more drugs are not the answer.


Welcome to the Low Carb Diabetic forum,have you signed up yet? if not then sign up and join us in the low carb community today!

    Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Share
    avatar
    Dillinger
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Male Posts : 208
    Join date : 2014-08-14
    Location : London

    Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by Dillinger on Fri Aug 29 2014, 18:15

    Stop me if you’ve heard these ones before!

    This is from an older post; which may or may not have been deleted in the other forum so I thought I'd resurrect it.

    I thought I’d look at a few of the common arguments we get here and elsewhere about various low-carbohydrate issues and try and deal with them in one post.  

    We are all different!

    Well, on a superficial level we are; we have different names and you and I are more handsome than Eddie, for instance, but on a biological level we are most certainly not different.  Our metabolisms work in exactly the same way; what we eat and what energy we expend will differ but it’s the same processes running.  You and I, at the most dissimilar end of the scale, share  99% of our DNA; when I say ‘share’ I don’t mean the gene sequences are similar – they are identical.  This means that the way you metabolise glucose is exactly the same way as I do.   What works for you, will work for me unless there is some additional factor operating.  So, if the logic of a low carb diet works for one person it will also work for another.  The cry of ‘we are all different’ then is really just a way of saying; ‘I don’t want to do what you are suggesting’; it is no more a counter argument against a low-carb approach than saying  ‘I don’t like the colour blue’ is an argument about the qualities of the colour blue.

    The only measurable difference between diabetics is the degree to which their pancreatic function has declined (from not very much to completely) and their varying levels of insulin resistance.  That will affect how sensitive to carbohydrate we are but it does not mean that those that are less sensitive would not benefit from avoiding carbohydrates. Which leads to the next point:

    I eat carbohydrates and get good results so why should I stop eating them?

    I ate 50 grams of carbohydrate at every meal from the age of 10 until about 30.  I did not die.  I got quite good diabetic control according to my check-ups; normally in the 7’s and some high 6’s.  I also developed peripheral retinopathy and mild nephropathy.  And so there is your answer right there.  On a low-carb diet those ‘irreversible conditions’ are improving.  The levels we are being given to aim for are wrong and are far far too high.

    Most people, to be fair, who use the above argument though are either type 2 or type 1.5 who still have some pancreatic function; they can eat carbs because their bodies are still trying to cope with the glucose peaks and troughs that inevitably follow.  They are not lying; they probably can eat cereals and toast and the like and still get good HbA1cs.  The point being though, that things would be much better for them if they gave their poor beaten exhausted pancreas a break and just stopped eating all that stuff in the first place, because sooner or later something is going to give.  

    The last segment of people who say this are those who are unable to make the mental jump from the world of plenty of starchy food to low carbing.  Have a look at their HbA1c’s if they’ll tell you them (which they often won’t) and/or look at what diabetic complications they are labouring under.  Those people who have gone through all the facts that we have and yet still won’t try to control their condition by dropping carbs are the people worry me the most; they are the Monty Python & The Holy Grail Black Knights; ‘it’s just a flesh wound...’.  It’s good to be positive of course, but not when you’ve just had your arm chopped off; denial comes in many forms I fear.

    I’m not going to let diabetes rule how I live my life

    I’m not going to let speeding traffic rule how I chose to walk across this motorway.  I’m my own person, blah, blah, blah. Crunch.  Dead.  Diabetes is a chronic complaint, it needs to be treated with some respect or else it will get you and it will do you in just as surely as that speeding car you are ignoring will.

    Cheesecake is what insulin is there for!

    This is from an actual forum quote.  I can’t really bring myself to say much about this; I wish I could eat cheesecake; I can’t.  You make a choice; if you want to eat this stuff then your health is going to suffer; even if you get your balancing doses perfectly pitched.  Insulin is a necessity, but we don’t want too much of the stuff slushing  around in our bodies laying down fats and doing its thing.  And by the way; you won’t perfectly pitch your balancing dose.

    Carbohydrate is an essential part of a balanced diet

    Nope, we’ve talked about this so many times.  Google it; and open your eyes.  This is where Karl Popper and his black swan theory comes in; it goes like this; if you make a statement such as ‘all swans are white’ as soon as you find a single example disproving the statement then the whole statement collapses.  If out of 1,000 swans one is black then the ‘all swans are white’ hypothesis must fail.

    If carbohydrate is an essential part of a balanced diet then anyone who can eat a healthy diet without carbohydrate is the carb black swan equivalent; it only takes one person.  And if you want we could start with Stefansson and his all-meat diet study in the 1920’s and have him as that one person.  But really there’s no need; as we all obviously know of thousands and thousands.  Let’s not make statements using the word ‘essential’ here anymore then eh?

    There are no carbohydrate deficiency diseases; we need a limited amount of glucose but that can be made by our livers from protein. We need no carbohydrate at all.

    If you low carb then you will be eating fats and protein which will damage your heart and kidneys respectively

    May I introduce you to my friends ‘cause’ and ‘effect’?  Damaged kidneys cannot process protein as effectively as undamaged kidneys.  You can alleviate the problem by eating less protein so that the failing kidneys won’t fail to process the protein to such a degree.  What damages kidneys is not eating protein though; it is uncontrolled blood sugars.  Damaged kidneys are the effect of blood glucose imbalance.  Protein is not the cause.

    On the heart side the longest running dietary study in the world (correct me if I’m wrong!) the Framingham study in Massachusetts concluded that ‘there is, in short, no suggestion of any relation between diet and the subsequent development of CHD in the study group… ’.  Now, we are seeing the drip drip drip of positive news about saturated fats turn into a trickle, soon hopefully into a flood and then 10 years from now the NHS will revise their wrong-headed stance.

    If you don’t eat fruit you’ll get scurvy

    One of the key things our friends on the other side of the chasm bring up is the 'fact' that a low-carb diet is lacking in variety and essential vitamins.  By this they mean vitamin C as that is the only one that is possibly limited in a diet consisting mostly of protein and fat. Now, I know that most of us feast on green vegetables too, but that would spoil even the vitamin C deficiency point from our beloved dietician friends. So let's pretend for the moment that we do only eat meat.

    This would presumably lead to scurvy as vitamin C is contained in animal foods in such small quantities that nutritionists have considered animal foods to be insufficient as a viable source for it.

    However the famous Stefansson all-meat diet study (mimicking the Inuit diet) in the 1920's showed that no vitamin deficiency arose after a year of a monitored tested and controlled all meat diet.

    Gary Taubes in his rather wonderful ‘The Diet Delusion’ provides an explanation of this as follows: ' The vitamin-C molecule is similar in configuration to glucose and other sugars in the body. It is shuttled from the bloodstream into the cells by the same insulin-dependent transport system used by glucose. Glucose and vitamin C compete in this cellular-uptake process, like strangers trying to flag down the same taxicab simultaneously. Because glucose is greatly favoured in the contest, the uptake of vitamin C by cells is "globally inhibited" when blood-sugar levels are elevated. In effect, glucose regulates how much vitamin C is taken up by the cells according to the University of Massachusetts nutritionist John Cunningham. If we increase blood-sugar levels, the cellular uptake of vitamin C will drop accordingly. Glucose also impairs the re-absorption of vitamin C by the kidney, and so, the higher the blood sugar, the more vitamin C will be lost in the urine. Infusing insulin into experimental subject has been shown to cause a 'marked fall' in the vitamin C levels in the circulation'.

    He goes on to say; ' in other words, there is a significant reason to believe that the key factor determining the level of vitamin C in our cells and tissues is not how much or how little we happen to be consuming in our diet, but whether the starches and refined carbohydrates in our diet serve to flush vitamin C out of our system while simultaneously inhibiting the use of what vitamin C we do have.'

    So, if you eat your balanced diet you have to eat fruit and vegetables to make up for the flushing of vitamin C from your system, if you drop the carbs then the vitamins will take care of themselves.

    So carbs are not only bereft of vitamins they help get rid of the ones we've already consumed...!

    If you low carb then you will be calcium deficient

    Here is Lisa Shea from Bella Online on this and she makes good sense to me;

    “A myth still believed by some is that a diet that has large amounts of protein will somehow "leach" all the calcium from your bones. This has been proven NOT to be true.

    The root of this myth is a study done in the 80s with fractionated protein powder. Apparently people who took this powder then experienced calcium loss from their bones. Note that these people weren't taking vitamins to supplement their diet.

    As just about any nutritionist can tell you, eating powders of food parts is NOT the same as eating the real, nutritious original food item. Also, having an issue arise when you eat one thing (powder) INSTEAD OF another (real meat) could be really showing that it was the LACK of the second food that caused the problem.

    So to further explore the issue, long term studies were done with regular meat-eaters who ate meat in a normal way - whether it was burgers, grilled steaks, pork chops or whatever. The studies found that there was NO calcium loss, either in the short term or long term.

    What the studies showed was that calcium (and other minerals) in your body need to have vitamins A and D in your system in order to be used properly. Protein powder doesn't have those vitamins, while animal fats do. So a person just taking protein powder in essence suffered from a vitamin A and D deficiency because they no longer were getting an adequate supply of those vitamins in their diet. They lost the calcium from their system because of the vitamin deficiency. A person eating a normal diet of beef, pork and chicken gets vitamin A and D from the fats in those meats, and therefore does NOT experience the vitamin deficiency syndrome.

    Pretty much the only natural sources of Vitamin D are animal fats, fish fats and fish oils. Most adults are at least mildly lactose intolerant, so the Vitamin D artificially added into milk does us little good.

    Vitamin A is found primarily in eggs, liver, meats, cheese and milk. It is also found in carrots, spinach and kale.

    So the primary message of the studies on protein and calcium is to TAKE YOUR VITAMINS because it is a lack of vitamins that causes problems for your body. The secondary message is that eating meats does NOT cause any calcium issues. If anything, eating meats helps ensure that you get your nutrients in a natural manner, rather than in a pill form.”

    Next...

    Fibre, fibre, fibre

    I’m running out of steam a bit now; but when you think about it; what is the point of eating something that isn’t absorbed and potentially damages your colon?  Here’s a link to Dr Mike:

    http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fiber/a-cautionary-tale-of-mucus-fore-and-aft/

    My doctors and dietician are highly trained professionals; who am I to question what they tell me?

    You are absolving responsibility for your own health and wellbeing to someone else; we should by all means listen to advice we are given, but advice is different from an order.  We need to assess and to question what we are told if we to gain knowledge and move forward.  There is such a thing as bad advice.

    To back this up; here is something I lazily copied from the internet;

    “The June 10, 2000 issue of the British Medical journal reports on an interesting statistic that has occurred in Israel. It seems that three months ago physicians in public hospitals implemented a program of sanctions in response to a labour dispute over a contract proposal by the government.  The article stated that the Israel Medical Association began an action in March to protest against the treasury’s proposed imposition of a new four year wage contract for doctors. Since then, the medical doctors have cancelled hundreds of thousands of visits to outpatient clinics and have postponed tens of thousands of elective operations.

    To find out whether the industrial action was affecting deaths in the country, the Jerusalem Post interviewed non-profit making Jewish burial societies, which perform funerals for the vast majority of Israelis.  Hananya Shahor, the veteran director of Jerusalems Kehilat Yerushalayim burial society said, "The number of funerals we have performed has fallen drastically."  Meir Adler, manager of the Shamgar Funeral Parlour, which buries most other residents of Jerusalem, declared with much more certainty: "There definitely is a connection between the doctors sanctions and fewer deaths. We saw the same thing in 1983 when the Israel Medical Association applied sanctions for four and a half months."”

    If you feel you really must listen to and do exactly as highly trained professionals say, might I just interject here; I am a highly trained lawyer and I advise you to send me all your money; sell everything, liquidate all your assets and send it to me.  You’ll feel better having done what you’ve been told.  If you won’t do that, then why should you do anything else a professional tells you?  If you will do that – pm me and I’ll send details of where to forward my money…

    Best

    Dillinger

    JohnWilson
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Posts : 34
    Join date : 2014-08-14

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by JohnWilson on Fri Aug 29 2014, 18:23

    One post sums up the claptrap posted elsewhere

    John
    avatar
    Paul1976
    Moderator

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Male Posts : 2434
    Join date : 2014-08-12
    Age : 41
    Location : East midlands,UK

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by Paul1976 on Fri Aug 29 2014, 18:30

    Where's an 'Applaud' button when you need it eh guys?!!

    Gonna sticky this one! Smile


    _________________
    Illegitimi non carborundum
    avatar
    Jan1
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Female Posts : 4400
    Join date : 2014-08-13

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by Jan1 on Fri Aug 29 2014, 19:02

    Amazing -Well Done Dillinger

    Please read it everyone - wherever you are

    All the best Jan
    avatar
    Andy12345
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Male Posts : 1638
    Join date : 2014-08-14
    Age : 47
    Location : Surrey

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by Andy12345 on Fri Aug 29 2014, 19:03

    that the best post i have ever read

    ive said that twice before in my life, this is better than both of those

    im in awe
    avatar
    Eddie
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Male Posts : 3780
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Age : 68
    Location : London

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by Eddie on Fri Aug 29 2014, 19:25

    Dillinger does not often speak, but when he does, he speaks softly, but carries a big stick.

    Eddie


    Last edited by eddie1 on Fri Aug 29 2014, 19:27; edited 1 time in total


    _________________
    Type two diabetic-low carb diet (50 carbs per day) and two 500mg Metformin pills per day. Apart from diagnosis HbA1c almost 12-all HbA1c results none diabetic. For over eight years my diabetes medication has not changed. My weight has remained stable, I have suffered no ill effects from my diet whatsoever. Every blood test has proved, I took the right road to my diabetic salvation. For almost seven years, I have asked medical professionals and naysayers, how do I maintain non diabetic BG levels on two Metformin other than low carb ? The silence has been deafening !
    avatar
    zand
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Female Posts : 1940
    Join date : 2014-08-14

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by zand on Fri Aug 29 2014, 19:26

    yes I agree.  Definitely the best post I've ever read too.  Never mind a 'like' button.  We need that 'applaud' button right now.  Thanks Dillinger
    avatar
    sanguine
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Male Posts : 395
    Join date : 2014-08-14
    Age : 63
    Location : Devon UK

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by sanguine on Fri Aug 29 2014, 19:45

    Brilliant - I need to print that out and frame it!
    avatar
    sanguine
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Male Posts : 395
    Join date : 2014-08-14
    Age : 63
    Location : Devon UK

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by sanguine on Fri Aug 29 2014, 20:32

    Dillinger, that really encapsulates why I started LCHF and why I will continue doing it.

    I don't have time to read as deeply and widely as some of you, but I have read Kendrick, Ruhl and Graveline at least. What these convinced me overall, not that I needed much, was that blood sugar control, by diet and exercise, is everything and that everything else (weight, cholesterol etc) would follow naturally from that. The other touchstone for me is a desire not to take any medication that I don't have to - surely my own body is a much more sophisticated and comprehensive biochemical process plant than any set of drugs? OK I take the odd paracetamol and ibuprofen, but that's pretty much how it's always been, and obviously as a T2 I don't have to take insulin. But by removing the poison (carbohydrate) that is the root cause of the problem everything else falls into place naturally. T1s can minimise their insulin in the same way.

    I've never seen the logic of insisting on continuing to take the poison and dealing with it (which we're not really) by taking more medication. Why would you do that? Low-carb foods are mostly just as tasty and satisfying, you find new things, and although I admit that sometimes I really fancy a thick bacon sandwich or a couple of croissants or a bowl of coco pops, I like to think I can deal with not having them any more. Because it will (hopefully) enable me to live longer and more healthily dammit, and there's stuff I need to do!

    avatar
    Eddie
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Male Posts : 3780
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Age : 68
    Location : London

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by Eddie on Fri Aug 29 2014, 21:14

    Rod said

    "Because it will (hopefully) enable me to live longer and more healthily dammit, and there's stuff I need to do!"

    That says it all for me.

    Regards Eddie


    _________________
    Type two diabetic-low carb diet (50 carbs per day) and two 500mg Metformin pills per day. Apart from diagnosis HbA1c almost 12-all HbA1c results none diabetic. For over eight years my diabetes medication has not changed. My weight has remained stable, I have suffered no ill effects from my diet whatsoever. Every blood test has proved, I took the right road to my diabetic salvation. For almost seven years, I have asked medical professionals and naysayers, how do I maintain non diabetic BG levels on two Metformin other than low carb ? The silence has been deafening !
    avatar
    AliB
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Female Posts : 377
    Join date : 2014-08-14
    Location : South Wales

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by AliB on Fri Aug 29 2014, 22:43

    Well said Dillinger.

    On the subject of DNA and one those who believe in evolution like to tout that we are 75% chicken (or something in that vicinity), did you know that humans are also 50% banana....?
    avatar
    Andy12345
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Male Posts : 1638
    Join date : 2014-08-14
    Age : 47
    Location : Surrey

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by Andy12345 on Fri Aug 29 2014, 22:46

    @AliB wrote:Well said Dillinger.

    On the subject of DNA and one those who believe in evolution like to tout that we are 75% chicken (or something in that vicinity), did you know that humans are also 50% banana....?



    some are alot more than 50%
    avatar
    sanguine
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Male Posts : 395
    Join date : 2014-08-14
    Age : 63
    Location : Devon UK

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by sanguine on Fri Aug 29 2014, 22:55

    @Andy12345 wrote:
    @AliB wrote:Well said Dillinger.

    On the subject of DNA and one those who believe in evolution like to tout that we are 75% chicken (or something in that vicinity), did you know that humans are also 50% banana....?

    some are alot more than 50%

    ROTFLMAO Laughing Laughing
    avatar
    graham64
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Male Posts : 3161
    Join date : 2014-08-10
    Location : Lancs

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by graham64 on Fri Aug 29 2014, 23:07

    Good post as per usual Dillinger (just call me Al) but your last paragraph gives ammunition for the case against having a PM system on this board Rolling Eyes  
    If you will do that – pm me and I’ll send details of where to forward my money…


    _________________
    I'm a skinny T2 diagnosed 4/4/2008, a high calorie LCHF diet and one metformin a day A1c 6.2 and no complications.

    Proving the LowCarb sceptics wrong for over nine years,

    Not all cherubs are Angels  Wink nor all diabetics Bonkers  Rolling Eyes
    avatar
    Thundercat
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Female Posts : 15
    Join date : 2014-08-14
    Age : 44
    Location : Ireland

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by Thundercat on Sat Aug 30 2014, 01:14

    What a terrific post. So we'll written. Very clear and succinct. You have really done an amazing job of summing it all up. Thank you so much.
    avatar
    Mrs Vimes
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Female Posts : 156
    Join date : 2014-08-14

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by Mrs Vimes on Sat Aug 30 2014, 07:00

    Thanks Dillinger, brilliant post.

    Kath
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Posts : 2
    Join date : 2014-08-16

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by Kath on Sat Aug 30 2014, 10:36

    Every newly diagnosed diabetic should be given a printed copy of Dillinger's post. Think of
    the lives, limbs etc wich would be saved!
    avatar
    mo1905
    Moderator

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Male Posts : 2303
    Join date : 2014-08-10
    Location : Cambs

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by mo1905 on Sat Aug 30 2014, 12:26

    As others have said, that post is amazing. So well put ! Be nice if this was posted on all diabetic forums :-)
    I'd like to see someone try to argue against it ! No chance :-)


    _________________
    Type1, Humalog and Solostar, Metformin, Lisinopril ( BP ), last HbA1C 41 ( 5.9% ), 20th Oct 2014, HbA1C 43 ( 6.1% ) 9th Mar 2015.
    avatar
    Paul1976
    Moderator

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Male Posts : 2434
    Join date : 2014-08-12
    Age : 41
    Location : East midlands,UK

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by Paul1976 on Sat Aug 30 2014, 12:58

    Game,set and Match I reckon Mo! Smile


    _________________
    Illegitimi non carborundum
    avatar
    sanguine
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Male Posts : 395
    Join date : 2014-08-14
    Age : 63
    Location : Devon UK

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by sanguine on Sat Aug 30 2014, 13:05

    Here's a question leading on from this, and from attempts by others to 'reintroduce' some carbs that they dropped in order to get BG control.

    My main objective would logically seem to be 'nice to my pancreas' by eating as few carbs as possible, say no more than 30-50g a day. That should keep my beta cells happy. But is there anything in the argument that reintroducing some carbs occasionally will prevent further increasing of insulin resistance - a sort of 'use it or lose it' thing - that some suggest? If I keep to low carb is that question even relevant? I'm not looking for a reason to reintroduce dropped carbs one day, far from it, but just wondering if 'doors are being closed' if you see what I mean.
    avatar
    zand
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Female Posts : 1940
    Join date : 2014-08-14

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by zand on Sat Aug 30 2014, 13:33

    @sanguine wrote:Here's a question leading on from this, and from attempts by others to 'reintroduce' some carbs that they dropped in order to get BG control.

    My main objective would logically seem to be 'nice to my pancreas' by eating as few carbs as possible, say no more than 30-50g a day.  That should keep my beta cells happy.  But is there anything in the argument that reintroducing some carbs occasionally will prevent further increasing of insulin resistance - a sort of 'use it or lose it' thing - that some suggest?  If I keep to low carb is that question even relevant?  I'm not looking for a reason to reintroduce dropped carbs one day, far from it, but just wondering if 'doors are being closed' if you see what I mean.

    That's a question I was going to ask too, but sanguine beat me to it. I'm a long way off from even thinking about this as I have a lot more weight to lose. The only carbs I would like to maybe re-introduce one day would be nutritious ones, like more fruit, potatoes occasionally, not processed junk. So yes the 'are doors being closed?' question is the only one I have too.
    avatar
    Paul1976
    Moderator

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Male Posts : 2434
    Join date : 2014-08-12
    Age : 41
    Location : East midlands,UK

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by Paul1976 on Sat Aug 30 2014, 13:34

    Interesting question Rod and I too have read similar on other forums but to be honest I've never really thought about it too much as I made the decision to Low carb as a new way of life and I've stuck to it as I know my pancreatic cells are slowly being destroyed by antibodies no matter what I do diet wise but low carb enables me to at least for now,keep good numbers on just a Basal insulin-for me introducing more carbs than the 50 grams max per day I eat isn't an option I want to explore. Smile


    _________________
    Illegitimi non carborundum
    avatar
    Eddie
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Male Posts : 3780
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Age : 68
    Location : London

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by Eddie on Sat Aug 30 2014, 14:00

    I have seen this "theory" being banded about by a few individuals in other places. The rationale seems to be going low carb for a long time can make you more sensitive to carbs. I reckon it's a bit of a laugh when you consider how sensitive we are to carbs, that's why we are diabetics. Show me a diabetic that is not sensitive to carbs. Evidently chomping on pot noodles can reduce sensitivity for some people, and Lions make good house pets.

    Regards Eddie


    _________________
    Type two diabetic-low carb diet (50 carbs per day) and two 500mg Metformin pills per day. Apart from diagnosis HbA1c almost 12-all HbA1c results none diabetic. For over eight years my diabetes medication has not changed. My weight has remained stable, I have suffered no ill effects from my diet whatsoever. Every blood test has proved, I took the right road to my diabetic salvation. For almost seven years, I have asked medical professionals and naysayers, how do I maintain non diabetic BG levels on two Metformin other than low carb ? The silence has been deafening !
    avatar
    Dillinger
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Male Posts : 208
    Join date : 2014-08-14
    Location : London

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by Dillinger on Sat Aug 30 2014, 19:17

    Thank you very much; I'm very glad that people think it's helpful. As much as I'd like to take all the credit for it, it is really a compilation of arguments that many others came up with as well including Fergus, Furgie, Eddie and many others.

    On the point about sensitivity to carbs I think I am more sensitive to carbs than I was. Perhaps it's the same mechanism that allows us to develop immunity to poisons; the body can adapt to many things. It must be a separate mechanism that allows you to eat more carbs after low carbing - but I would guess that that only applies to Type 2's and I bet it's a measure of the improved insulin response, but if you keep going then you'll be back in trouble.

    Thanks again for the kind words.

    Dillinger
    avatar
    zand
    Member

    Status :
    Online
    Offline

    Female Posts : 1940
    Join date : 2014-08-14

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by zand on Sat Aug 30 2014, 20:16

    @Dillinger wrote:On the point about sensitivity to carbs I think I am more sensitive to carbs than I was. Perhaps it's the same mechanism that allows us to develop immunity to poisons; the body can adapt to many things. It must be a separate mechanism that allows you to eat more carbs after low carbing - but I would guess that that only applies to Type 2's and I bet it's a measure of the improved insulin response, but if you keep going then you'll be back in trouble.

    Thanks again for the kind words.

    Dillinger

    As a type 2, your explanation of improved insulin response makes a lot of sense to me and so does the warning that follows. Thank you.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Arguments against Low-Carbing

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jan 22 2018, 16:28