Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / November 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

blinded by carbohydrates

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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  
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.