Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / November 2005
blinded by carbohydrates
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Evelyn Ruut - 13 Oct 2005 09:21 GMT I ran across this interesting article a little while ago.
http://www.livescience.com/imageoftheday/siod_050705.html
 Signature Best Regards, Evelyn
(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox')
Nicky - 13 Oct 2005 10:21 GMT >I ran across this interesting article a little while ago. > > http://www.livescience.com/imageoftheday/siod_050705.html This surprised me - I thought that was a minimum, not a recommended, figure: " The recommended dietary allowance – 130 grams for adults and children – for daily carb intake is based on how much the brain needs to function properly. "
This didn't: " Cataracts are formed when damaged proteins gather within one or both of the eye lenses, causing the eye to become cloudy or opaque. High-carbohydrate diets may have a harmful effect on the lens as a result of increased exposure of normal lens proteins to glucose. "
Nicky.
 Signature A1c 10.5/5.6/<6 T2 DX 05/2004 1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine 95/74/72Kg
Jenny - 13 Oct 2005 16:51 GMT >>I ran across this interesting article a little while ago. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for daily carb intake is based on how much the brain needs to function > properly. " Nicky,
This is so wrong because it forgets that about 60% of dietary protein converts to glucose in the liver. Plus, if you lower your carb intake for three weeks, your requirement for glucose drops, too. Lyle MacDonald's book, The Ketogenic Diet summarizes all the mainstream lab research that comes up with these figures and explains what your real protein and carb needs are. I have summarized his findings on my page http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/proteincalc.htm and show you how to calculate your protein need depending on your carb level. This page h is one of the most popular on that site.
 Signature --Jenny
http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/ Type 2 Diabetes info http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Low Carb info
Nicky - 13 Oct 2005 20:08 GMT >>>I ran across this interesting article a little while ago. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > This is so wrong because it forgets that about 60% of dietary protein > converts to glucose in the liver. Oh, I know that, Jenny - I bump along merrily at around the 50-60g mark with no drop in cognition : ) I'm sure I've seen the 130g quoted as a minimum, though, and was curious because this article quotes it as a "recommended" level.
Thanks for the Lyle cite. I must read his book - although I admit to finding him a very scary person!
Nicky.
 Signature A1c 10.5/5.6/<6 T2 DX 05/2004 1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine 95/74/72Kg
Jenny - 13 Oct 2005 21:49 GMT > Thanks for the Lyle cite. I must read his book - although I admit to finding > him a very scary person! > > Nicky. Lyle has in image to uphold that comes from being a certain age and part of a certain culture. I have a kid like that so I'm familiar with the syndrome. <g>
However his book reveals the wonk beneath the attitude. Very dry, scholarly stuff, but extremely well researched and footnoted. The only problem with it is that it was done years ago so the research cuts out around 1998. And it is expensive enough that it probably isn't worth buying now unless you are serious about weight training routines. The rest of what is in it is pretty well understood by now.
I'm not sure it is
--Jenny
http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/ Type 2 Diabetes info http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Low Carb info
Fred Henzi - 14 Oct 2005 06:54 GMT > This is so wrong because it forgets that about 60% of dietary protein > converts to glucose in the liver. Plus, if you lower your carb intake for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to calculate your protein need depending on your carb level. This page h > is one of the most popular on that site. I read your excellent summary and calculated the % of calories for the example. They are 8.1% from CHO, 24.3% from protein and 67.6% from fat. This compares very well with my intake, 10%, 30%,60% on 2000 cal. I've been doing this for about 5 years now with no ill effects to the brain.
I have two questions though: 1. What do you mean by" Depending on how sensitive to carbs this additional carb may stall you" and 2. "Any fat beyond this amount will be burned for energy instead of dietary fat".
Fred Henzi T2, diet and exercise
Jenny - 14 Oct 2005 14:01 GMT >>This is so wrong because it forgets that about 60% of dietary protein >>converts to glucose in the liver. Plus, if you lower your carb intake for [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Fred Henzi > T2, diet and exercise Fred,
As those who are familiar with my postings are well aware, I'm "word blind" and can't see a lot of typos, elisions, etc. Looks like you found a couple. I'll have a look at the page later when I have some time.
 Signature --Jenny
http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/ Type 2 Diabetes info http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Low Carb info
morrisolder@earthlink.net - 26 Oct 2005 21:09 GMT This surprised me - I thought that was a minimum, not a recommended, figure: " The recommended dietary allowance - 130 grams for adults and children -for daily carb intake is based on how much the brain needs to function properly. "
Surprised me too. Does anyone know whose recommednation that is? The USDA, in the nutrition labels on all foods, recommends that a 2000 calorie diet include 315 grams of carbs (you get that by multiplying the carbs to find out what would equal 100% of the daily allowance). Although 130 may seem high to quite a few diabetics, it is lower than what most dieticians recommend for diabetics, and lower than what works for another large group of diabetics.
So where did that number--130 come from?
Susan - 26 Oct 2005 22:11 GMT > This surprised me - I thought that was a minimum, not a recommended, > figure: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Surprised me too. Does anyone know whose recommednation that is? Most biochemistry texts state that the brain needs 100-130 grams of glucose per day. It doesn't have to come from carbohydrate, though; 58% of protein consumed also converts to glucose.
Further, in ketosis, the brain lowers that glucose requirement to about 40 grms per day, IIRC, and runs well on ketones for the balance.
Susan
Sleepyman - 28 Oct 2005 22:07 GMT >This surprised me - I thought that was a minimum, not a recommended, >figure: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >So where did that number--130 come from? Just wondering, Do you eat 315g of carb/day? And if you do what kind of bg numbers are you getting?
Sleepy
---------------------------- "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for Texas." -Miriam "Ma" Ferguson , Texas governor (1920s) ----------------------------
morrisolder@earthlink.net - 07 Nov 2005 02:42 GMT Sleepy,
I just saw your post. No I don't eat 315 grams of carbs a day, although I probably did before diagnosis. Obviously that RDA is for non-diabetics. Personally I am somewhere around half of that, which some people would call a low-carb diet, while others would tell me it is way high. I don't really count on a daily bass, more by per meal, limiting meals to 45 grams and snacks to about 15 grams. Works for me, with an A1c of 4.9 to 5.1 for the last 2 years.
My curiosity was on where the number 130 came from, as I hadn't heard that before. Someone explained that some expert thought that was the minimum needed for brain activity, and actually now that I look back, it even says that in the cited article. Though that was also disputed in the thread, at least I know where the number came from. It struck me as odd, becuse there are a lot of diabetics eating a lot less than 130 grams per day and for the most part their brain function seems to work okay, with a variation not atypical of the population at large.
Alan S - 07 Nov 2005 03:12 GMT > It struck me >as odd, becuse there are a lot of diabetics eating a lot less than 130 >grams per day and for the most part their brain function seems to work >okay, with a variation not atypical of the population at large. That's what strikes many of us as odd too. You might ask the same question on other forums:-)
Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
 Signature Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
Susan - 07 Nov 2005 04:11 GMT > My curiosity was on where the number 130 came from, as I hadn't heard > that before. Someone explained that some expert thought that was the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > grams per day and for the most part their brain function seems to work > okay, with a variation not atypical of the population at large. It is odd, since the brain needs glucose, not dietary carbohydrate. Protein is a source of glucose, too.
Susan
Mary - 14 Oct 2005 00:37 GMT > I ran across this interesting article a little while ago. > > http://www.livescience.com/imageoftheday/siod_050705.html Today I circulated in 9 cataract surgeries. Believe me, it's not the most traumatic surgery to be had. Cataracts are nothing to be wary of--the surgery is usually relatively simple (especially if the cataracts aren't too advanced, don't wait for them to be "ripe" as in the past) and the patients are so excited after the first surgery that they can't wait to have the second eye done. For "repeat offenders" I often ask how the first surgery went, and they are so happy with the results that they can't wait for the second to be done. It's like having Lasik surgery, only better! The intraocular lenses that we use for implants are so great, that some are seeing better on the way to the recovery room.
Mary
Chris J. - 14 Oct 2005 07:11 GMT >> I ran across this interesting article a little while ago. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >for implants are so great, that some are seeing better on the way to the >recovery room. It's true that in most cases Cataract surgery is benign these days. My Mother had it done last year, and the lens implant improved her vision dramatically.
However, I still take precautions, as I'm no fan of unneeded surgery. I have a genetic disposition to cataracts (they are abnormally common in my family amongst the elderly), plus my diabetes (I think) makes me more prone to it, and finally I am exposed to a great deal more UV light than is normal. So, I wear sunglasses whenever I'm outside.
Mary - 15 Oct 2005 01:37 GMT >>>I ran across this interesting article a little while ago. >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > more prone to it, and finally I am exposed to a great deal more UV > light than is normal. So, I wear sunglasses whenever I'm outside. Oh, you're right to take precautions, but if you find that you develop cataracts, it's usually (with a GOOD surgeon) a simple and quick surgery with great results.
Nicky - 14 Oct 2005 22:05 GMT >> I ran across this interesting article a little while ago. >> >> http://www.livescience.com/imageoftheday/siod_050705.html >> > Today I circulated in 9 cataract surgeries. Believe me, it's not the most > traumatic surgery to be had. Sure, but I'd rather not need them in the first place. And it can go wrong - my Dad is left with 20% vision in one eye after a cataract op.
Nicky.
 Signature A1c 10.5/5.6/<6 T2 DX 05/2004 1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine 95/74/72Kg
Mary - 15 Oct 2005 01:51 GMT >>>I ran across this interesting article a little while ago. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Nicky. That can happen, but usually with either an incompetent surgeon, or in someone who has other problems that complicate the surgery, such as glaucoma, macular degeneration, retinopathy. My father had macular degeneration and did have cataract surgery, and he was happy that he had some improvement, especially in color, but of course his vision was not restored to perfect.
How long ago did your dad have the operation? At the surgery center where I work, there are several VERY competent eye surgeons, and one not so competent. I wish I could take the patients of the incompetent surgeon aside and tell them to leave quickly, but I'm not allowed to do that. So the most important thing is for the patient or the patient's family to find a competent surgeon. That may be difficult to do, but there are two ways that you can get information:
1) talk to others who have had the surgery done, and find out if they are pleased with the results, or
2) find someone who works with the doctors in surgery and ask their opinion. We are not allowed to speak against a surgeon, but we can certainly give indications of who we really like. I've done it rather indirectly many times, often by saying something like "oh, he's the eye doctor I go to myself!"
Once, when I needed to know who a good surgeon was, I called the operating room at the local hospital and asked if they could give me two recommendations for a good surgeon (whichever specialty). They gave me a couple of choices to go by. And if I received a call asking for that information, I wouldn't hesitate to answer. Hopefully, you will get the same response.
Mary
Nicky - 15 Oct 2005 22:52 GMT >> Sure, but I'd rather not need them in the first place. And it can go >> wrong - .
> How long ago did your dad have the operation? At the surgery center where > I work, there are several VERY competent eye surgeons, and one not so > competent. That one would have been about 3 years ago. It was the second cataract op with the same guy - the first one went fine.
Personally, I'm still trying to minimise the risk of cataracts in the first place by good control.
Nicky.
 Signature A1c 10.5/5.6/<6 T2 DX 05/2004 1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine 95/74/72Kg
guy williams - 16 Oct 2005 02:21 GMT The title of this post is grossly wrong.
This lo carb is a fad and nothing else.
I do need eye operations now.
It is caused by poor control for years. Control is only casually related to carbs.
Part of my problems were related to the many faddist ideas I foolishly tried in the past.
Kinda like sugar diabetes thing.
Learn the basics and execute a good program. Forget the faddists and their evangelism.
Diabetes is a complex thing. Guy
Dennis Rekuta - 19 Oct 2005 04:46 GMT >>>Sure, but I'd rather not need them in the first place. And it can go >>>wrong - [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Nicky. The best thing you can do is stay out of the sun as much as possible, and make sure that if you are out in it that you always wear a good pair of UVA/UVB rated sunglasses. You are probably more likely to get optic nerve damage from uncontrolled BG's than cataracts.
Dennis (Type 2)
Riga LVB - 15 Oct 2005 18:54 GMT I had my first cataract surgery in 1999. The results were very encouraging, and my eyesight improved at least 90%. I was able to read and work on the computer without glasses. During my second surgery in 2003 I developed choroidal bleeding, and a result the surgery was interrupted and I was left with approx. 5% vision in this eye. Since then I had a secondary operation without much of improvement. There is not sufficient pressure in that eye due to some leakage. Initially my ophthalmologist assured at least 80% sight in that eye. All they can do is monitor the improvement. With my experience I would suggest that anybody due for a cataract operation would approach with a serious attitude towards it, and try to select the best surgeon available in a given area.
>> I ran across this interesting article a little while ago. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Mary Mary - 15 Oct 2005 19:23 GMT > I had my first cataract surgery in 1999. The results were very encouraging, > and my eyesight improved at least 90%. I was able to read and work on the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >>Mary Are you on anticoagulants? Choroidal bleeding is not very common, about 15/100 of a percent. Coagulants or a previous injury to the eye can increase the occurrence.
Mary - 15 Oct 2005 19:29 GMT >> I had my first cataract surgery in 1999. The results were very >> encouraging, and my eyesight improved at least 90%. I was able to read [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > 15/100 of a percent. Coagulants or a previous injury to the eye can > increase the occurrence. Oops, I meant anticoagulants :)
Donna Evleth - 19 Oct 2005 11:33 GMT > From: Mary <imnothere@bogus.com> > Newsgroups: alt.support.diabetes [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Mary My cataract operations were the best operations I've ever had. They were a day surgery procedure, and I had the two eyes done two weeks apart. I did have a slight infection after the second one, but antibiotics overcame it very quickly. My eyes ran a bit at first - I had to carry kleenex with me all the time - but that symptom disappeared after a couple of months. Those were the only problems I had, and I consider them really minor.
The improvement in my vision was beyond my wildest dreams. When I got rid of the defective old lenses, and got the implants, I also got to get rid of my reading glasses, which I had hated for ten long years. I now read again without glasses, and reading is again a pleasure. My trouble had been an astigmatism, and when the old lenses went, the problem went with them.
I can't really say, though, that my cataracts were caused by eating too many carbs. In addition to type 2 diabetes, I have celiac disease. I have eliminated all gluten from my diet, which includes a great many carbs, like the pasta in the pretty picture on the website.
Donna Evleth
|
|
|