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 / December 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Low Carb-Diets Focusing On Vegetable-Based Fat And Protein

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
coonskin@amestwp.com - 13 Nov 2006 14:22 GMT
Not excluding any source of carbs, fat, and protein; benefit is found
focusing on non-saturated fat sources of fats and protein to reduce risk
of heart disease:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=56273

"In the first study to look at the long-term effects of low-carbohydrate
diets, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) found
no evidence of an association between low-carb diets and an increased
risk of CHD in women. Their findings did suggest, however, an
association between low-carb diets high in vegetable sources of fat and
protein and a low risk of CHD. "This study suggests that neither a
low-fat dietary pattern nor a typical low-carbohydrate dietary pattern
is ideal with regards to risk of CHD; both have similar risks. However,
if a diet moderately lower in carbohydrates is followed, with a focus on
vegetable sources of fat and protein, there may be a benefit for heart
disease," said Tom Halton, a former doctoral student in the Department
of Nutrition at HSPH."
Susan - 13 Nov 2006 15:31 GMT
> Not excluding any source of carbs, fat, and protein; benefit is found
> focusing on non-saturated fat sources of fats and protein to reduce risk
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> disease," said Tom Halton, a former doctoral student in the Department
> of Nutrition at HSPH."

A recent study involving over 40,000 middle-aged and older American
men over a period of six years found that there was no link between
saturated fat intake and heart disease in men. It also supported the
contention that linolenic acid (a form of fat) is preventive against
heart disease. (Ascherio A et. al. Dietary fat and risk of coronary
heart disease in men: cohort follow up study in the United States.
British Medical Journal, 1996 Jul 13, 313:7049, 84-90.)"

"Several studies have shown that high-carbohydrate low-fat diets lead
to high triglycerides, elevated serum insulin levels, lower HDL
cholesterol levels, and other factors known to raise the risk of
coronary artery disease. (See Liu GC; Coulston AM; Reaven GM. Effect
of high-carbohydrate low-fat diets on plasma glucose, insulin and
lipid responses in hypertriglyceridemic humans. Metabolism, 1983 Aug,
32:8, 750-3. See also Coulston AM; Liu GC; Reaven GM. Plasma glucose,
insulin and lipid responses to high-carbohydrate low-fat diets in
normal humans. Metabolism, 1983 Jan, 32:1, 52-6. See also Olefsky JM;
Crapo P; Reaven GM. Postprandial plasma triglyceride and cholesterol
responses to a low-fat meal. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
1976 May, 29:5, 535-9. See also Ginsberg H et. al. Induction of
hypertriglyceridemia by a low-fat diet. Journal of Clin Endocrinol
Metab, 1976 Apr, 42:4, 729-35) "

"The idea that saturated fats cause heart disease is completely wrong,
but the statement has been 'published' so many times over the last
three or more decades that it is very difficult to convince people
otherwise unless they are willing to take the time to read and learn
what...produced the anti-saturated fat agenda." (Dr. Mary Enig,
Consulting Editor to the Journal of the American College of Nutrition,
President of the Maryland Nutritionists Association, and noted lipids
researcher.)

"The diet-heart hypothesis [which suggests that high intake of
saturated fat and cholesterol causes heart disease] has been
repeatedly shown to be wrong, and yet, for complicated reasons of
pride, profit and prejudice, the hypothesis continues to be exploited
by scientists, fund-raising enterprises, food companies and even
governmental agencies. The public is being deceived by the greatest
health scam of the century." (Dr. George V. Mann, participating
researcher in the Framingham study and author of CORONARY HEART
DISEASE: THE DIETARY SENSE AND NONSENSE, Janus Publishing 1993.)

High intake of fats from the Omega-3 group increase HDL cholesterol,
which is considered protective against heart disease. Obviously it
would be difficult to eat an Omega-3 rich diet while following a
traditional fat reduced diet, especially if one were following one of
the popular American diets that has one eating only 20-30 grams of fat
per day. (Franceschini G. et. al. Omega-3 fatty acids selectively
raise high-density lipoprotein 2 levels in healthy volunteers.
Metabolism, 1991 Dec, 40:12, 1283-6. See also Journal of the American
College of Nutrition 1991:10(6);593-601)

A recent American study showed that low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets
(15% protein, 60% carbohydrate, 25% fat) increase risk of heart
disease in post-menopausal women over a higher fat, lower carbohydrate
diet (15% protein, 40% carbohydrate, 45% fat). (Jeppeson, J., et. al.
Effects of low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets on risk factors for
ischemic heart disease in postmenopausal women. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 1997;65:1027-33)

The largest and most comprehensive study on diet and breast cancer to
date, studying over 5,000 women between 1991 and 1994, showed that
women with the lowest intake of dietary fat had a significantly higher
incidence of breast cancer than the women with the highest intake of
dietary fat. It also found that women with the highest intake of
starch had a significantly higher incidence of breast cancer than the
women with the lowest intake of starch. The study found no evidence
that saturated fat had any effect one way or the other on breast
cancer, and that unsaturated fat had a significantly protective effect
against breast cancer. (Franceschi S et. al. Intake of macronutrients
and risk of breast cancer. Lancet; 347(9012):1351-6 1996)

"The commonly-held belief that the best diet for prevention of
coronary heart disease is a low saturated fat, low cholesterol diet is
not supported by the available evidence from clinical trials. In
primary preventions, such diets do not reduce the risk of myocardial
infarction or coronary or all-cause mortality. Cost-benefit analyses
of extensive primary prevention programmes, which are at present
vigorously supported by governments, health departments, and health
educationalists, are urgently required....Similarly, diets focused
exclusively on reduction of saturated fats and cholesterol are
relatively ineffective for secondary prevention and should be
abandoned. There may be other effective diets for secondary prevention
of coronary heart disease but these are not yet sufficiently well
defined or adequately tested." (European Heart Journal, Volume 18,
January 1997.)

"We found no evidence of a positive association between total dietary
fat intake and the risk of breast cancer. There was no reduction in
risk even among women whose energy intake from fat was less than 20
percent of total energy intake. In the context of the Western
lifestyle, lowering the total intake of fat in midlife is unlikely to
reduce the risk of breast cancer substantially." (Hunter, DJ et. al.
Cohort studies of fat intake and the risk of breast cancer - A pooled
analysis. New England Journal of Medicine, 334: (6) FEB 8 1996)

2) Title: DG-DISPATCH - ENDO 99: Diabetics Improve Health With Very
High-Fat,
Low
Carb Diet
Doctor's Guide
June 15, 1999

By Cameron Johnston
Special to DG News

SAN DIEGO, CA -- June 15, 1999 -- A very high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet
has
been shown to have astounding effects in helping type 2 diabetics lose
weight
and improve their blood lipid profiles.

The results of three studies involving such a diet, which is similar to,
but
has a few key differences from the famous "Dr. Atkins Diet", were
presented
today
at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Dr. James Hays, an endocrinologist and director of the Limestone Medical
Center in Wilmington, DE, admitted that the concept of a high-fat diet in
people
who are already at higher risk of cardiovascular disease might seem
incongruous.
Nonetheless, this study of 157 men and women with type 2 diabetes showed
an
impressive benefit in body mass index (BMI) triglycerides, HDL, LDL and
HbA1c.

Most people are encouraged to reduce the amount of fat in their diets,
particularly saturated fats, and diabetics in particular are advised to
reduce
their
overall caloric intake, Dr. Hays explained in an interview in San Diego
during
the
conference.

Whereas a normal diet would be in the order of 1800 to 2100 calories,
with 60
percent of calories coming from carbohydrates and 30 percent from fat,
patients

in this diet were restricted to 1800 calories per day and were
encouraged to
get
50 percent of their caloric intake from fat, and just 20 percent from
carbohydrates.
The balance of 30 percent would come from proteins.

A whopping 90 percent of the fat content in their diets was saturated
fat,
compared
with just 10 percent that was monounsaturated fat.

"I think this is at least worth considering for any diabetic," Dr. Hays
said in
an interview.
"The thing many diabetics coming into the office don't realize is that
other
forms of
carbohydrates will increase their sugars, too. Dietitians will point them
toward complex carbohydrates ... oatmeal and whole wheat bread, but we
have to
deliver the message that these are carbohydrates that increase blood
sugars,
too."

Higher-fat diets, on the other hand, seem to make the person feel full
faster
so they eat less; higher-fat diets also tend to reduce postprandial
hypoglycemia so the patients feel better after eating.

"Every diabetic comes home from the doctor with instructions as to what
their
diet should consist of, but they're not getting the information from
dietitians about what complex carbohydrates they should eat,"

Dr. Hays said:
"The important thing here is no ketosis. We absolutely don't want people
to
become
ketotic, and so we said they had to have so many exchanges of fresh
fruits and
vegetables and we specified the ones they could eat."

They were able to eat all the meat and cheese they wanted, but as for
carbohydrates, they are restricted to eating unprocessed foods, mainly
fresh
fruit and vegetables, he added.

Subjects recruited into the study (84 men, 73 women) were all type 2
diabetics
and
were required to undergo a standard American Diabetes Association
modified diet
for
one full year before entry into the trial. Over the course of one year,
the
subjects achieved a mean decline in total cholesterol of between 231 and
190
mg/dl. Triglycerides declined from 229 to 182 mg/dl.

Low-density lipoproteins (LDL cholesterol) fell from 133 to 105 mg/dl,
while
HDL
increased from 44 to 47 mg/dl.

HbA1c, which at the start of the study averaged 3.34 percent above
normal,
declined to the point that at one year, the mean was just 0.96 percent
above
normal.

The average weight loss among subjects in the study was in the order of
40
pounds, Dr. Hays said.

By the end of the one-year study, he added, 90 percent of the patients
had
achieved ADA (American Diabetes Association) targets for HbA1c, HDL,
LDL and triglycerides.

Even among juvenile diabetics, he said, they might not be overweight and
they
might have more or less normal lipid levels, but when they are on this
kind of
diet
it is possible to treat them with lower doses of insulin and make their
lives a
little
safer, he said.

As for the response from cardiologists who see a high-fat diet as
anathema to
what they have been instructing their patients for years now, Dr. Hays
said he
has
three cardiologist patients who are now on the diet.

"If you have a diet that results in weight loss, lower cholesterol, and a
better lipid profile, eventually, everybody will be eating that way.
It's going
to come
whether we like it or not."

The New England Journal of Medicine -- November 20, 1997 -- Vol. 337,
No. 21

Dietary Fat Intake and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Women
Frank B. Hu, Meir J. Stampfer, JoAnn E. Manson, Eric Rimm, Graham A.
Colditz, Bernard A. Rosner, Charles H. Hennekens, Walter C. Willett
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

Abstract
Background. The relation between dietary intake of specific types of
fat, particularly trans unsaturated fat, and the risk of coronary
disease remains unclear. We
therefore studied this relation in women enrolled in the Nurses' Health
Study.

Methods. We prospectively studied 80,082 women who were 34 to 59 years
of age and had no known coronary disease, stroke, cancer,
hypercholesterolemia, or
diabetes in 1980. Information on diet was obtained at base line and
updated during follow-up by means of validated questionnaires. During 14
years of follow-up, we
documented 939 cases of nonfatal myocardial infarction or death from
coronary heart disease. Multivariate analyses included age, smoking
status, total energy intake,
dietary cholesterol intake, percentages of energy obtained from protein
and specific types of fat, and other risk factors.

Results. Each increase of 5 percent of energy intake from saturated fat,
as compared with equivalent energy intake from carbohydrates, was
associated with a 17
percent increase in the risk of coronary disease (relative risk, 1.17;
95 percent confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.41; P = 0.10). As compared
with equivalent energy from
carbohydrates, the relative risk for a 2 percent increment in energy
intake from trans unsaturated fat was 1.93 (95 percent confidence
interval, 1.43 to 2.61;
P<0.001); that for a 5 percent increment in energy from monounsaturated
fat was 0.81 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.00; P = 0.05);
and that for a 5
percent increment in energy from polyunsaturated fat was 0.62 (95
percent confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.85; P = 0.003). Total fat intake
was not significantly
related to the risk of coronary disease (for a 5 percent increase in
energy from fat, the relative risk was 1.02; 95 percent confidence
interval, 0.97 to 1.07; P = 0.55).
We estimated that the replacement of 5 percent of energy from saturated
fat with energy from unsaturated fats would reduce risk by 42 percent
(95 percent confidence
interval, 23 to 56; P<0.001) and that the replacement of 2 percent of
energy from trans fat with energy from unhydrogenated, unsaturated fats
would reduce risk by
53 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 34 to 67; P<0.001).

Conclusions. Our findings suggest that replacing saturated and trans
unsaturated fats with unhydrogenated monounsaturated and polyunsaturated
fats is more effective
in preventing coronary heart disease in women than reducing overall fat
intake. (N Engl J Med 1997;337:1491-9.)

Source Information
>From the Departments of Nutrition (F.B.H., M.J.S., E.R., W.C.W.),
Epidemiology (M.J.S., J.E.M., E.R., B.A.R., W.C.W.), and Biostatistics
(B.A.R.),
Harvard School of Public Health; and the Channing Laboratory (M.J.S.,
J.E.M., E.R., G.A.C., B.A.R., C.H.H., W.C.W.) and the Division of
Preventive
Medicine (J.E.M., C.H.H.), Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's
Hospital and Harvard Medical School -- all in Boston. Address reprint
requests to Dr.
Hu at the Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, 665
Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115.

Ann Intern Med 1998 Apr 1;128(7):524-33

Metabolic risk factors worsen continuously across the spectrum of
nondiabetic glucose tolerance. The Framingham Offspring Study.

Meigs JB, Nathan DM, Wilson PW, Cupples LA, Singer DE
Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston
University School of Public Health, 02114, USA.
jmeigs@sol.mgh.harvard.edu

BACKGROUND: Categorical definitions for glucose intolerance imply that
risk thresholds exist, but metabolic risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus
or cardiovascular
disease may increase continuously as glucose intolerance increases.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the distributions of the following metabolic risk
factors across the
spectrum of glucose tolerance: overall and central obesity,
hypertension, low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and
increased triglyceride and insulin
levels. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: The community-based
Framingham Offspring Study. PARTICIPANTS: 2583 adults without previously
diagnosed diabetes. MEASUREMENTS: Clinical data; fasting glucose,
insulin, and lipid levels; and glucose and insulin levels taken 2 hours
after oral challenge
were collected from 1991 to 1993. Glucose tolerance was determined by
1980 World Health Organization criteria. Patients with normal glucose
tolerance were
categorized into quintiles of fasting glucose. The distributions of each
metabolic risk factor and the metabolic sum of the six risk factors were
assessed across seven
categories from the lowest quintile of normal fasting glucose level
through impaired glucose tolerance and previously undiagnosed diabetes.
RESULTS: The mean
age of patients was 54 years (range, 26 to 82 years); 52.7% of patients
were women. Glucose tolerance testing found that 12.7% of patients had
impaired glucose
tolerance and 4.8% had previously undiagnosed diabetes.
Multivariable-adjusted mean measures of risk factors and odds ratios for
obesity, elevated waist-to-hip ratio,
hypertension, low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol,
elevated triglyceride levels, and hyperinsulinemia showed continuous
increases across the spectrum
of nondiabetic glucose tolerance. Although a threshold effect near the
upper range of nondiabetic glucose tolerance could not be ruled out for
triglyceride levels in
men and for insulin levels 2 hours after oral challenge in men and
women, no other metabolic risk factors showed clear evidence of
thresholds for increased risk.
CONCLUSIONS: Metabolic risk factors for type 2 diabetes mellitus and for
cardiovascular disease worsen continuously across the spectrum of
glucose tolerance
categories, beginning in the lowest quintiles of normal fasting glucose
level.

PMID: 9518396, UI: 98175274
coonskin@amestwp.com - 13 Nov 2006 16:23 GMT
"A recent study involving over 40,000 middle-aged and older American
men over a period of six years found that there was no link between
saturated fat intake and heart disease in men. It also supported the
contention that linolenic acid (a form of fat) is preventive against
heart disease."

Yes, just as the original post said "linolenic acid (a form of fat)":

" The noun linolenic acid has one meaning:

  Meaning #1: a liquid polyunsaturated fatty acid that occurs in some
  plant oils; an essential fatty acid"

To repeat, the research of this thread says low carb and focus on plant
sources of fat and protein in combination has the effect of lowering
risk of heart disease.  Older questions were is it low fat or low carb
that is better, this says low carb with attention to "good fats" and
non-animal sources of protein.  It does not say exclude the latter, but
moderation in them is the ticket.  It all depends on which and how
questions are asked that determines answers.
Jackie Patti - 13 Nov 2006 17:28 GMT
> To repeat, the research of this thread says low carb and focus on plant
> sources of fat and protein in combination has the effect of lowering
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> moderation in them is the ticket.  It all depends on which and how
> questions are asked that determines answers.

What exactly were the people in this study eating?

You can get most of your fat from plants, but I don't see how you can
get most of your protein from plants while remaining low-carb.  Most of
your legumes have more grams carb per serving than grams of protein.

I'm not aware of any plant forms of protein that would provide
sufficient protein and still allow one to be relatively low-carb except
black soybeans.

Was it really a study of people who get their protein primarily from
black soybeans?
coonskin@amestwp.com - 13 Nov 2006 17:45 GMT
> To repeat, the research of this thread says low carb and focus on plant
> sources of fat and protein in combination has the effect of lowering
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> moderation in them is the ticket.  It all depends on which and how
> questions are asked that determines answers.

"What exactly were the people in this study eating?

You can get most of your fat from plants, but I don't see how you can
get most of your protein from plants while remaining low-carb.  Most of
your legumes have more grams carb per serving than grams of protein.

I'm not aware of any plant forms of protein that would provide
sufficient protein and still allow one to be relatively low-carb except
black soybeans.

Was it really a study of people who get their protein primarily from
black soybeans?"

I should have used "lower" and not "low" carb in my response above.  All
forms of protein from all sources were used, it was a large population
study of thousands of people.  Those who trended toward plant sources of
protein, some of which you mention, and unsaturated fats had the lower
risk of heart disease.  This trend also included lean sources of animal
protein.  It is not a "low" anything dietary pattern but a moderate one
in all forms of carb and fat and protein intake. paying attention to
"good fats" and the proteins that come with them.
Kurt - 13 Nov 2006 18:08 GMT
> Not excluding any source of carbs, fat, and protein; benefit is found
> focusing on non-saturated fat sources of fats and protein to reduce risk
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> disease," said Tom Halton, a former doctoral student in the Department
> of Nutrition at HSPH."

Which is pretty much in keeping with many studies over the years that
suggest one reduce the amount of red meat in their diets and replacing
it with other sources of protein.  Some in here, and many in the real
world, who adopt a low carb diet seem to eat an awful lot of red meat.

My motto..."Fish, the other white meat!"  Now is that plagiarism or
parody? :)

Best,
Kurt
Alan S - 13 Nov 2006 23:00 GMT
>Which is pretty much in keeping with many studies over the years that
>suggest one reduce the amount of red meat in their diets and replacing
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Best,
>Kurt

Odd.

Depends on whether you define it absolutely or
proportionally.

Proportionally, out of 21 "main meals" each week I would eat
red meat, white meat and fish about 7 each. I count bacon as
red meat, pork chops as white (just my own logic there:-),
chicken as white. 7 fish meals is a min, not a max. My
'tween-meal snacks are generally meat-less.

But in absolute terms, I eat much, much less of all meats
than I did before diagnosis, significantly more fish, lots
more veges, lots less starch and lots less saturated fats or
oils.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: The Vatican
Jackie Patti - 14 Nov 2006 16:56 GMT
> Which is pretty much in keeping with many studies over the years that
> suggest one reduce the amount of red meat in their diets and replacing
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> My motto..."Fish, the other white meat!"  Now is that plagiarism or
> parody? :)

IMO, it's all in how you *do* a specific diet.  Whether it's low-carb,
low-fat or whatever, one can do it in a healthy manner or in an
unhealthy manner.

Myself... I do low-carb by replacing the majority of sugars, grains,
sweet fruits and starchy veggies in my diet with non-starchy veggies.
For me, the largest difference in the % of macronutrients is due to
veggies being so low calorie that the total kilocalories is decreased.
% protein and fat is skewed mostly due to high veggie consumption as
opposed to higher protein and fat consumption.

So I'm on a "high fat" diet primarily because I replace potatoes with
broccoli and bread with salad which doesn't make any sense to *me* that
it's unhealthier regardless of the macronutrient percentages, ya know?
It's only "high" fat cause the total kilocalories have been cut in half,
not cause I eat more fat.

My meat consumption hasn't increased, but my dairy consumption has, so
there may be some larger amount of saturated fat over pre-low-carb days
as I doubt the chips and breads I ate were mostly saturated fat.  I
completely agree with you that fish is a better source of fats, just I
don't like the stuff, so rarely eat it.

But... I have seen people do low-carb where they eat almost no veggies
and replace the carbier foods with stuff like loads of bacon and
burgers, which is not exactly a terrifically healthy diet.

I've also seen lots of low-fat dieters do the same type of thing,
replacing the fat they cut from their diets with piles of bagels and
bread and pasta and completely avoid veggies except for a bit of lettuce
and tomato as a condiment on a grilled chicken sandwich.

My daughter was vegetarian for about 6 years, and she doesn't like
vegetables much, so for her being vegetarian meant eating almost
entirely starch.  This doesn't make a vegetarian diet unhealthy though,
it's just the way she did it that was unhealthy.

IMO, *any* diet can be done in a healthy manner or an unhealthy manner.

I think the more important bit is the volume of food rather than the
macronutrient percentages and think that the largest volume of food
ought to be a wide variety of fruits and veggies regardless of the other
dietary considerations.
Kurt - 14 Nov 2006 18:25 GMT
> > Which is pretty much in keeping with many studies over the years that
> > suggest one reduce the amount of red meat in their diets and replacing
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
> ought to be a wide variety of fruits and veggies regardless of the other
> dietary considerations.

Good point.  Well said and thanks for saying it.

Best,
Kurt
Susan - 14 Nov 2006 19:19 GMT
> I think the more important bit is the volume of food rather than the
> macronutrient percentages and think that the largest volume of food
> ought to be a wide variety of fruits and veggies regardless of the other
> dietary considerations.

This is an extremely central part of the benefits conferred by low
carbing, and the biggest misconception about it.

Though my % of calories from carbs is very low, the volume of carbs in
my diet is huge; I heat huge platters of mixed green salads and of
cooked veggies, mostly the leafy or cruciferous type.  This is healthier
not only because it makes my diet so low glycemic, but because these
colorful, high fiber foods are packed densely with nutrients, while the
starch it replaces in my diet is nutrient impoverished by comparison,
and highly oxidized once processed to make it edible.

Susan
Alan S - 14 Nov 2006 20:46 GMT
>So I'm on a "high fat" diet primarily because I replace potatoes with
>broccoli and bread with salad which doesn't make any sense to *me* that
>it's unhealthier regardless of the macronutrient percentages, ya know?
>It's only "high" fat cause the total kilocalories have been cut in half,
>not cause I eat more fat.

That is the critical point most often missed by critics -
most of us here eat less of almost everything compared to
pre-diagnosis days.

I eat less meat, a little more fish, lots more non-starchy
vegetables. But in absolute terms I eat less fat, protein
and carbohydrate than pre-diagnosis days - simply because I
ate too much of ALL of those before.

So "high-fat" or "high-carb" is a term that may be true if
used in a proportional sense, but inaccurate in absolute
terms.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: The Vatican
Gantlet - 14 Nov 2006 21:10 GMT
>>So I'm on a "high fat" diet primarily because I replace potatoes with
>>broccoli and bread with salad which doesn't make any sense to *me* that
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> most of us here eat less of almost everything compared to
> pre-diagnosis days.

yes this is true for most over wieght diabetics it probably very important
to eat less of just about everything except those things like broccoli that
perhaps where
not eaten before dx day.
however if you agree with the above post that says

"So I'm on a "high fat" diet primarily because I replace potatoes with
>>broccoli and bread with salad "

you might want to do a bit more research on the subject of nutrition for
diabetics.

its threads like this that really make me wonder how honest some people here
are.
and what their intentions are.

Tom

Up!Up! and away from my computer.
Gantlet - 14 Nov 2006 21:07 GMT
> So I'm on a "high fat" diet primarily because I replace potatoes with
> broccoli and bread with salad which doesn't make any sense to *me*

and it wont make sence to anyone.  broccoli also has carbs so if you replace
lets say 100 carbs of whole grains and fruits with broccoli you can eat
about
25 frozen packages of broccoli or if you subtract fiber 50 packages.
tell you the truth im not up to that.  what they dont want is for those like
me
that will not eat 25-50 frozen packages of broccoli with protiens and fats.

Tom
Chris Malcolm - 14 Nov 2006 23:29 GMT
>> So I'm on a "high fat" diet primarily because I replace potatoes with
>> broccoli and bread with salad which doesn't make any sense to *me*

> and it wont make sence to anyone.  broccoli also has carbs so if you replace
> lets say 100 carbs of whole grains and fruits with broccoli you can eat
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> me
> that will not eat 25-50 frozen packages of broccoli with protiens and fats.

It makes sense to anyone intelligent enough to realise that if you
used to eat a pork chop with a potato, and now eat it with a head of
broccoli, you're now eating proportionally more fat simply because
you're eating fewer carbs. And you're eating proportionally more fat,
even though you're not eating any more fat. It's the simple magic of
primary school arithmetic.

As the poster pointed out, probably too many sentences back for you to
remember, the diet adjustment was not being made according to the
exchange game.

Signature

Chris Malcolm        cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk              DoD #205
IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Jackie Patti - 15 Nov 2006 14:44 GMT
>>> So I'm on a "high fat" diet primarily because I replace potatoes with
>>> broccoli and bread with salad which doesn't make any sense to *me*
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> remember, the diet adjustment was not being made according to the
> exchange game.

I was trying to reply to Tom last night and it didn't go and I can't
find his message today, so I'm piggybacking on yours to more fully
explain myself (you did understand me).

I have a straightforward example of what I meant by replacing foods like
sugar, cereals, breads, grains, potatoes and corns with piles of
non-starchy veggies.

It starts with supposing I have a chicken breast leftover from dinner
last night and want to make lunch with it.

A decade ago, I'd have made a sandwich, using good whole wheat bread, a
slice of cheese and tomato and some lettuce and mayo.

Today, I'd be more likely to make a salad.  I'd have around a cup of
lettuce, a half cup of radicchio, half a tomato, half a cucumber, a
couple slices of onion, a handful of alfalfa sprouts, top it all with
the chicken and cheese crumbled on top and some homemade guacamole on
there for dressing.

Eating this way, I have functionally replaced a couple slices of bread
with several cups of veggies.  This results in more food by volume, but
much lower carbs and kilocalories.

To specifically show math, a typical day of food 10 years ago might be
this:

350g CHO, 100g PRO, 80g FAT, 2520 kilocalories total (29% fat)

Whereas on low-carb, a typical day is:

50g CHO, 100g PRO, 80g FAT, 1400 kilocalories (52% fat)

I don't eat more protein or fat overall to achieve a "high fat" diet.
Rather, I've just replaced sugars and starches with piles of veggies,
which I can't see how *anyone* could say was bad for me.  But by
strictly looking at macronutrients, it would qualify as an "unhealthy"
high-fat diet!

And that is largely my point, that the macronutrient definition of a
healthy diet is a useless measure.  It doesn't matter if it's low-carb
or high-carb, low-fat or high-fat, it matters specifically how a person
chooses to eat within whatever diet they're on.

For *me*, low-carb means a huge volume of veggies compared to pre-carb
days, which makes the largest difference in my macronutrient profile.
It also happens to mean less meat, as I get a lot of my protein and fat
from nuts and dairy products, though I don't object to good meat (I buy
grain-fed beef from a farmer nearby, and also buy pork and chicken and
turkey regularly).

You *can* do low-carb by mostly eating bacon and burgers.  You *can* do
low-fat by eating mostly bread and pasta.  You can do *any* diet in an
unhealthy manner if you try.  It being "low carb" or "low fat" doesn't
make it healthy or unhealthy, it's what you actually eat.

I think my carb level is very low, but I've been diabetic 18 years and
can't maintain my bg at a higher level.

I recommend people having problems with bg start off at around 100g/day
and experiment from there.  But even so, I think if they "spent" most of
their carbs primarily on fruits and veggies rather than bread and
potatoes, they'd get more health benefits.  As Tom pointed out, the
amount of broccoli you can eat instead of whole grains provides an awful
lot of nutritional value for the carbs.
Gantlet - 15 Nov 2006 17:07 GMT
>>>> So I'm on a "high fat" diet primarily because I replace potatoes with
>>>> broccoli and bread with salad which doesn't make any sense to *me*
[quoted text clipped - 85 lines]
> of broccoli you can eat instead of whole grains provides an awful lot of
> nutritional value for the carbs.
Gantlet - 15 Nov 2006 17:25 GMT
> To specifically show math, a typical day of food 10 years ago might be
> this:
>
> 350g CHO, 100g PRO, 80g FAT, 2520 kilocalories total (29% fat)

i remember those days however i think in my case the fat content was also
much higher.
i never had bread, pasta or even potatoes with out some kind of meat and it
was usually red meat.

> Whereas on low-carb, a typical day is:
>
> 50g CHO, 100g PRO, 80g FAT, 1400 kilocalories (52% fat)

now try a low carb day for someone newly diagnosed, looking to lose weight
slowly.  the calorie count might also be around 2500 or 2200.
this is the point where for myself i dislike low carb the most.

> And that is largely my point, that the macronutrient definition of a
> healthy diet is a useless measure.

this is very true.

It doesn't matter if it's low-carb
> or high-carb, low-fat or high-fat, it matters specifically how a person
> chooses to eat within whatever diet they're on.

true. but for myself.. thinking that i can eat fat and not have it effect my
meter
takes away a lot of the motivation diabetes has given me.

> I recommend people having problems with bg start off at around 100g/day
> and experiment from there.

i think it depends on too many things for me to make that recommendation.
100 carbs a day would have taken my motivation away to become more active.

 But even so, I think if they "spent" most of
> their carbs primarily on fruits and veggies rather than bread and
> potatoes, they'd get more health benefits.

>As Tom pointed out, the amount of broccoli you can eat instead of whole
>grains provides an awful lot of nutritional value for the carbs.

alot more volume that i wouldnt be willing to eat.  thats alot of broccoli.
and i would probably end up just replacing it with fat.
but i do use that trick at parties when there are all kinds of veggies
around.

Tom
Jackie Patti - 16 Nov 2006 01:19 GMT
>> To specifically show math, a typical day of food 10 years ago might be
>> this:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> i never had bread, pasta or even potatoes with out some kind of meat
and it
> was usually red meat.

Perhaps it was for you.  It was not for me.  I ate a very healthy
low-fat diet for a good decade before I began eating a low-carb diet.

My diet *before* diagnosis was mostly starch, cause we were dirt poor
while I was a single mom in college and graduate school and all.  But
once I was finished, we ate pretty healthy for a darned long time.
Mostly organic stuff too.

After diagnosis, most of my carbs were whole grains... I regularly
cooked things like what berries, oat groats, quinoa, etc.  Some whole
wheat breads and such.  Desserts were things like rice pudding made with
brown rice and skim milk.  Lots of fruit, always had a bowl of fruit on
the table (still do, though it's for hubby not me - he likes to snack a
lot, so I keep good snacks for him).  I did that for about a decade.

I've been low-carbing for about another decade since... so I am *not*
comparing a junk food diet to a healthy diet, but a *healthy* low-fat
diet to a *healthy* low-carb diet.  They were both relatively healthy
diets, just one controls my bg and the other doesn't.

>> Whereas on low-carb, a typical day is:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> slowly.  the calorie count might also be around 2500 or 2200.
> this is the point where for myself i dislike low carb the most.

Why?

Someone newly-diagnosed has high bg.  They're likely out of shape as
well, having weight to lose and not exercising regularly.  So that's 3
problems: high bg, high weight and no exercise.

If they eat low-carb and maintain a high kilocalorie count, they solve
the bg problem immediately, and start losing weight a bit.  Course,
you're right this does nothing for the exercise.

But still, solving *some* problems is better than doing nothing, and
everyone has to start somewhere...

I have been so ill with high bg that getting out of bed wasn't possible,
let alone exercise.  If I were told the only way to get better from
there was to exercise, I'd have died in bed!

>> And that is largely my point, that the macronutrient definition of a
>> healthy diet is a useless measure.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> meter
> takes away a lot of the motivation diabetes has given me.

I suggest you not read the research then... cause it doesn't show that
fat has much effect on bg for normals or Type 1s or Type 2s.

>> I recommend people having problems with bg start off at around 100g/day
>> and experiment from there.
>
> i think it depends on too many things for me to make that recommendation.
> 100 carbs a day would have taken my motivation away to become more active.

Naw, that is a starting point.  If you control your bg there, you go up.
 If you can't control it there, you go down.  And you add exercise
specifically to *allow* you to go up, cause it does a great job burning
up extra carbs.

That is what I recommend, that 100g be a starting point, not a rule of
life.  There *isn't* a rule regarding how much carb is OK.  You have to
find out, and you have to adjust as your circumstances dictate.

I understand you eat what would be an incredible amount of carb for me
because you exercise very hard.  But if you broke your leg like my
daughter just did (3 bones broken followed by surgery followed by 8
weeks in a cast before she can start physical therapy), you'd probably
need to lower your carb intake to maintain your bg as well as you do now.

It isn't an either/or... both diet and exercise are important.  And they
both effect your bg, so you have to balance them appropriately.

>   But even so, I think if they "spent" most of
>> their carbs primarily on fruits and veggies rather than bread and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> but i do use that trick at parties when there are all kinds of veggies
> around.

I do that trick at my house, where there's all kinds of veggies around.
 ;)  My favorite exercise is gardening.  Nothing beats eating a sugar
snap pea you picked 5 seconds before.  ;)

I stock up when stuff is on sale, so usually have a huge pantry full of
food, and a freezer filled with meats.  I also do canning and
dehydrating.  So... I could go 6 months at a time without shopping at all.

But... in winter, I start craving fresh stuff.  I decide I'm gonna go
get an uncanned, undehydrated tomato and wind up spending $40-50 on
vegetables... it's the worst bit of blowing my food budget, I get where
I just crave the fresh stuff.

I don't do much fruit in winter.  Frozen strawberries just aren't the
same.  And any melon in the market was picked unripened and shipped many
miles and just isn't *good* like melon in summer.

I eat stirfry several times a week and salads almost every day.  It's
*very* normal for me to eat more than 6 cups of veggies in a day.  It's
usual, in fact.

I make a soup that is a few pounds of meat in about 6 gallons of soup.
All the rest is veggies.  It's awesome, and I can eat it day-in and
day-out until it's gone.  I never bother canning this particular soup,
I'll just eat it for a week.  It's easily 90% veggies by volume.

It'd be unusual for me to eat *just* 6 cups of broccoli, true.  But...
with lettuce and radicchio and bell peppers and onions and leeks and
scallions and shallots and garlic and cucumbers and tomatoes and swiss
chard and mustard greens and cabbage and broccoli and cauliflower and
zucchini and squash and romano green beans and snap peas... it's darned
easy to eat 6 or more cups of that stuff every day.

And yeah, I sometimes eat it with red meat.  I do a hamburger and
cabbage stiryfry that is a favorite around here... 1 lb of hamburger
fried up with about an inch of grated ginger root and 3 pressed cloves
of garlic, then add a whole head of shredded cabbage, and finish up with
soy sauce to taste.  Makes 4 big servings that's equivalent to 2 cups of
raw veggies per serving right there, not counting salad to go with or
any other meals...
Susan - 16 Nov 2006 01:28 GMT
> I understand you eat what would be an incredible amount of carb for me
> because you exercise very hard.

No he doesn't, he just makes noises about it.  He's still morbidly obese
and notin good control 4 years after diagnosis.  That's not because he's
exercising all those carbs off, in fact he reported weight regain here,
and came back some months ago in fear that his vision problem at the
time was due to his not having controlled his bg.

Basically, you're discussing diet and exercise recommendations with
someone with no track record of successfully employing either as a diabetic.

Notice he's the one whining about not having a drug to help him pig out
on Thanksgiving.

As if he needs a holiday to do so.

Susan
Kurt - 16 Nov 2006 03:25 GMT
> > I understand you eat what would be an incredible amount of carb for me
> > because you exercise very hard.
>
> No he doesn't, he just makes noises about it.  He's still morbidly obese
> and notin good control 4 years after diagnosis.

Not true.  Susan's idea of being in good control is eating substandard
amont of calories per day, no carbs, and no exercise.   Tom is in good
control and does it with diet and exercise.  Because he doesn't buy
into the "agenda" that Susan and a few others have in here, lies like
these are posted.

>That's not because he's
> exercising all those carbs off, in fact he reported weight regain here,
> and came back some months ago in fear that his vision problem at the
> time was due to his not having controlled his bg.

No, he had an injury to the eye that was not diabetic related.  Eye
injuries can be very scary.  So much for compassion.

> Basically, you're discussing diet and exercise recommendations with
> someone with no track record of successfully employing either as a diabetic.

Basically Susan is a liar.

> Notice he's the one whining about not having a drug to help him pig out
> on Thanksgiving.

Many people here have bemoaned the fact that diabetes severely alters
the enjoyment of the holidays, but since Tom mentions it then it's him
whining and wanting to pig out.  Typical hypocrisy from Susan a.k.a.
the Minister of Misinformation.  How strange that she posted a response
to him in that thread with a suggestion and then comes here to stab him
in the back.

> As if he needs a holiday to do so.

What a mean spirited and uncalled for post.  Wonder if Alan will chime
in here and chastise her for not giving "support"...after all, it is in
the name of the newsgroup.

So let's just archive Susan's angry and spiteful post as yet another in
an evergrowing series of nasty things said to and about Tom.  Is he
really a bad guy, or just a T2 who doesn't follow the mob mentality?

Kurt
Cheri - 16 Nov 2006 04:05 GMT
We can't be perfect all the time, so when someone asks about eating on
a holiday, or a birthday or something, I really don't think it's
necessary to berate them. Personally, I give myself to permission to eat
what I want on a few occasions during the year. By doing that, I find
that I very seldomly eat any of the things I'm imagining I'll eat, but I
could if I wanted to. Not only that, but if I could find a pill that
would allow me to do that on special occasions, believe me, I'd take the
pill. :-)

--
Cheri

Kurt wrote in message

>What a mean spirited and uncalled for post.  Wonder if Alan will chime
>in here and chastise her for not giving "support"...after all, it is in
>the name of the newsgroup.
Kurt - 16 Nov 2006 04:25 GMT
> We can't be perfect all the time, so when someone asks about eating on
> a holiday, or a birthday or something, I really don't think it's
> necessary to berate them.

I agree.

>Personally, I give myself to permission to eat
> what I want on a few occasions during the year. By doing that, I find
> that I very seldomly eat any of the things I'm imagining I'll eat, but I
> could if I wanted to.

It's a little different for me since I am a Type 1 in the sense that I
can bolus more insulin to cover the additional food.  Thing is, I
rarely ever do that.  I never have been a big eater and there is no
reason to chow down more on one day, than any other.  I like good food
and enjoy the meal with friends and family, but the misery I see on the
faces of relatives when they stuff themselves like Kirstie Alley AFTER
she danced in her bikini on Oprah, is enough to remind me there is no
joy in overeating.

>Not only that, but if I could find a pill that
> would allow me to do that on special occasions, believe me, I'd take the
> pill. :-)

My doctor tells me that there is a pill that helps.  What it does is
takes the urge to eat away by making it harder...it's called Viagra.
(Sorry, I can hear your groaning after that one)

Best,
Kurt

> Kurt wrote in message
>
> >What a mean spirited and uncalled for post.  Wonder if Alan will chime
> >in here and chastise her for not giving "support"...after all, it is in
> >the name of the newsgroup.
Gantlet - 16 Nov 2006 18:39 GMT
We have come a long way Cheri.
Cheri is one of the best examples here.
I do believe she is friendly with Susan ( no body is perfect )
but she is honest enough to tell her friends when she thinks they are wrong.
you go girl.

Tom

> We can't be perfect all the time, so when someone asks about eating on
> a holiday, or a birthday or something, I really don't think it's
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>>in here and chastise her for not giving "support"...after all, it is in
>>the name of the newsgroup.
Cheri - 16 Nov 2006 19:07 GMT
Yes, we have. Once we stopped the nastiness, and started treating each
other as human beings and fellow diabetics, it's made for a much better
experience IMO. I enjoy your posts, even if I don't agree with some of
them. As to Susan, I like her very much. She has given me a lot of great
info including the ALA, same with Jennifer,Jenny, rk, and just about
every poster here at one time or another. I appreciate all the posters,
if only for taking the time to give a URL, or type something in that
might be useful to another, or even to disagree when they feel the need.
:-)

--
Cheri

Gantlet wrote in message

<0g27h.3025$672.1100@trndny01>...
>We have come a long way Cheri.
Gantlet - 16 Nov 2006 19:21 GMT
> Yes, we have. Once we stopped the nastiness, and started treating each
> other as human beings and fellow diabetics, it's made for a much better
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> --
> Cheri

I just hope those you like very much do not hold your honesty against you.
i like your posts also.  when thinking about everything they do bring a
smile to my face.

Tom

> Gantlet wrote in message
>
> <0g27h.3025$672.1100@trndny01>...
>>We have come a long way Cheri.
Cheri - 16 Nov 2006 19:33 GMT
:-) Me too with yours. Some of it was pretty damned funny I must admit.
I like being friends better though.

--
Cheri

Gantlet wrote in message ...
>i like your posts also.  when thinking about everything they do bring a
>smile to my face.
>
>Tom
Chris Malcolm - 16 Nov 2006 13:53 GMT
>> > I understand you eat what would be an incredible amount of carb for me
>> > because you exercise very hard.
>>
>> No he doesn't, he just makes noises about it.  He's still morbidly obese
>> and notin good control 4 years after diagnosis.

> Not true.  Susan's idea of being in good control is eating substandard
> amont of calories per day, no carbs, and no exercise.  

Well, according to her reported figures she *is* in good control, very
good control in fact. Do you think she's lying about her figures?

> Tom is in good
> control and does it with diet and exercise.  Because he doesn't buy
> into the "agenda" that Susan and a few others have in here, lies like
> these are posted.

It's not just that Tom doesn't "buy into the agenda", he doesn't buy
into answering any questions at all about his BGs etc.. All he ever
says is "I'm in good control with d&e and take no meds". It would be
really easy for Tom to reply to one of these "mean spirited lying
accusations", if indeed that is what they are, by doing what all the
rest of us in this diabetes newsgroup often do, which is to tell other
folk how well or badly we're doing by giving the numbers.

Perhaps he's very shy and doesn't like boasting about his successes.
Perhaps he doesn't want to discourage newbies by appearing to set
impossible goals for them by his own excellent example. Given how keen
Tom is to accuse Susan of all sorts of mendacity, one wonders just why
he lets slip such an excellent opportunity of showing that she's lying
about his condition.

Signature

Chris Malcolm        cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk              DoD #205
IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Susan - 16 Nov 2006 15:00 GMT
> Perhaps he's very shy and doesn't like boasting about his successes.
> Perhaps he doesn't want to discourage newbies by appearing to set
> impossible goals for them by his own excellent example. Given how keen
> Tom is to accuse Susan of all sorts of mendacity, one wonders just why
> he lets slip such an excellent opportunity of showing that she's lying
> about his condition.

Perhaps it's because the one time he actually posted numbers, he fudged
them, and they made absolutely no sense, so ignorant was/is he of how
blood glucose responds post meal.  He then lamely tried so suggest he
was just being humorous in posting them.  It was comical, alright,
though not intentionally so.

Susan
Gantlet - 16 Nov 2006 18:42 GMT
> It's not just that Tom doesn't "buy into the agenda", he doesn't buy
> into answering any questions at all about his BGs etc.. All he ever
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> rest of us in this diabetes newsgroup often do, which is to tell other
> folk how well or badly we're doing by giving the numbers.

i never bother to post about the numbers i get with small meals but
i often do when i eat a large meal.  and have often told that with numbers
like i get from those meals some doubt i am diabetic.

Tom
Kurt - 16 Nov 2006 18:57 GMT
> >> > I understand you eat what would be an incredible amount of carb for me
> >> > because you exercise very hard.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Well, according to her reported figures she *is* in good control, very
> good control in fact. Do you think she's lying about her figures?

Who knows?  There is no way to verify anything here.  But by reading
what she has to say she seems to be very inactive and have many other
medical conditions.  

Kurt
Ozgirl - 16 Nov 2006 19:53 GMT
>> >> > I understand you eat what would be an incredible amount of carb
>> >> > for me because you exercise very hard.
>> >>
>> >> No he doesn't, he just makes noises about it.  He's still
>> >> morbidly obese and notin good control 4 years after
diagnosis.

>> > Not true.  Susan's idea of being in good control is eating
>> > substandard amont of calories per day, no carbs, and no
exercise.

>> Well, according to her reported figures she *is* in good control,
>> very good control in fact. Do you think she's lying about
her
>> figures?
>
> Who knows?  There is no way to verify anything here.  But by reading
> what she has to say she seems to be very inactive and have many other
> medical conditions.

Which would account for her needing a lower calorie diet
than you need. It doesn't mean her diet is sub standard. I
am very aware of nutrients and I am also very active, but I
maintain weight on 1500 calories. Every one is different.
Susan - 16 Nov 2006 20:47 GMT
> Which would account for her needing a lower calorie diet
> than you need. It doesn't mean her diet is sub standard. I
> am very aware of nutrients and I am also very active, but I
> maintain weight on 1500 calories. Every one is different.

Though I have been inactive at times in the past (and may be in the
future) due to illness, and am currently ordered off my right foot due
to an injury, I do not, as a rule, lead a life that could be called
inactive.  I treadmill, kayak, hike when I'm not on crutches, run up and
down stairs zillions of times per day (often carrying laundry load) it
seems, and use weights and work my abs, which I can do as long as I'm
sitting even now while less mobile.  I seem to be getting a really good
upper body workout from my recent use of crutches.  :-)

Even at times when I've been very active (during 6 mos. of thrice weekly
rehab and the ensuing few years in the gym), I've maintained my weight
on this caloric level and even lower when I was on low fat, high carb.
I should mention that in the past month, as my adrenal function has
improved, even though less active, my maintenance caloric average is
closer to 1150 per day.

My diet is extremely high carb by volume because all my carbs come from
low glycemic, high fiber veggies, but it's low carb by caloric
percentage.  I get a very high amount of both daily fiber and
nutrients/antioxidants from the foods I eat.  Even at times when I'm
inactive for any reason, my 1 hour PP is always under 120, usually
around 111-114 or thereabouts.

I don't want to be overweight and I hope not to ever require meds to
control my bg, so I eat in a way that keeps my bg and weight in very
healthy, normal numbers.  When I splurge on something, I make sure it's
decadent enough to be worth it, I have a small portion, I take some
Precose with it, and make sure to go for a walk within 45 minutes of
eating it.

I never pig out.

Susan
Cheri - 16 Nov 2006 20:56 GMT
I guess it depends on what ones idea of "pig out" is. My idea of
"pigging out" is eating things I don't normally eat, not the amount I
eat. My last pig out was a Big Hunk and a Tootsie Roll Pop, eaten at
different times of the day. Not a lot of food, but not really good food
for me, especially since it takes a few days to get rid of the cravings.
:-)

--
Cheri

>I don't want to be overweight and I hope not to ever require meds to
>control my bg, so I eat in a way that keeps my bg and weight in very
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Susan
Susan - 16 Nov 2006 21:00 GMT
> I guess it depends on what ones idea of "pig out" is. My idea of
> "pigging out" is eating things I don't normally eat, not the amount I
> eat. My last pig out was a Big Hunk and a Tootsie Roll Pop, eaten at
> different times of the day. Not a lot of food, but not really good food
> for me, especially since it takes a few days to get rid of the cravings.
> :-)

My definition of pigging out is eating til stuffed, no matter what the
food is.

Eating small amounts of the wrong stuff is a slip up or a splurge in my
book, but not a Pig Out.

Susan
Cheri - 16 Nov 2006 21:40 GMT
Yes, though I will say that eating LC for several years now, I don't
really ever have a stuffed feeling. However, several months ago when I
had a large baked potato, and some chocolate chip cookies along with
brandy in coffee with cream, I had terrible heartburn, and a rotten
headache the next day. I haven't had any of them since, but I guess
eating and drinking enough of anything to make you feel ill would be
classed as a pig out. I'm going to try to avoid that during the
holidays. :-)

--
Cheri

>x-no-archive: Yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>Susan
Susan - 16 Nov 2006 21:52 GMT
> Yes, though I will say that eating LC for several years now, I don't
> really ever have a stuffed feeling. However, several months ago when I
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> classed as a pig out. I'm going to try to avoid that during the
> holidays. :-)

I never eat til stuffed, or even fullish feeling; it grosses me out now.

It's really interesting that you mention heartburn and a headache.  When
I first discovered I was IR and started reading the PCOS group and the
low carb group it kept being mentioned by posters that GERD, IBS, FMS,
depression all went away with the dietary change to low carb.  These
positive changes have been consistently mentioned wrt to LC for the many
years I've followed these groups.  I had severe FMS for a while before I
low carbed, and I haven't had it since the day after I began low carb,
it's never returned.

Cheri, you *splurged* on a *POTATO????*   ;-D

Last time I splurged, it was on a sliver of a killer chocolate cake of
thin dark chocolate cake layers with thick chocolate ganache layers and
frosting and truffles around the top.  That was a little over a month ago.

Susan
Cheri - 16 Nov 2006 22:19 GMT
Yes, that's truly one of the great things about LC to me, no heartburn
and no gnawing hunger. I also haven't had swollen ankles for years. Even
without the diabetes, being rid of those things would be enough to keep
me LC, at least most days out of the year, but I would always choose a
potato over just about anything sweet...with a couple of exceptions.
BTW, your small splurge sounds like it was pretty wonderful. :-)

--
Cheri

Susan wrote in message

<4s44tdFt04cgU1@mid.individual.net>...
>x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
>Susan
Susan - 16 Nov 2006 22:52 GMT
> Yes, that's truly one of the great things about LC to me, no heartburn
> and no gnawing hunger. I also haven't had swollen ankles for years.  Even
> without the diabetes, being rid of those things would be enough to keep
> me LC, at least most days out of the year, but I would always choose a
> potato over just about anything sweet...with a couple of exceptions.

For me, it'd be the crispy edge of a pizza crust; I usually just eat the
 topping.  Potato is completely forgettable to me, except as a good
vehicle for butter.  ;-)

> BTW, your small splurge sounds like it was pretty wonderful. :-)

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...  It was.

Susan
Alice Faber - 16 Nov 2006 21:52 GMT
> x-no-archive: Yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Eating small amounts of the wrong stuff is a slip up or a splurge in my
> book, but not a Pig Out.

Yep...four servings of turkey is a definite pig-out.

Signature

"and the snark alert level has reached "fuschia""
                  ---zig zigalo homes in on the meat of the matter

Susan - 16 Nov 2006 21:54 GMT
x-n0-archive: Yes

> Yep...four servings of turkey is a definite pig-out.

Define "serving."   :-)

Susan
Donna B - 16 Nov 2006 23:27 GMT
In alt.support.diabetes on Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:56:55 -0800  in Msg.#
<kI2dnXN3mosSTcHYnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@inreach.com>, "Cheri"
<gserviceatinreachdotcom> wrote:

> I guess it depends on what ones idea of "pig out" is. My idea of
> "pigging out" is eating things I don't normally eat, not the amount I
> eat. My last pig out was a Big Hunk and a Tootsie Roll Pop, eaten at
> different times of the day. Not a lot of food, but not really good food
> for me, especially since it takes a few days to get rid of the cravings.
> :-)

What's a Big Hunk?

I can't imagine eating a Tootsie Roll Pop at this point. But, then, if I
wanted something that had nothing at all positive to say for itself except
that I like it, ... well, I have a feeling it would be worse for me than a
Tootsie Roll Pop!! LOL

Signature

Donna B  : ^>  <*>
06-07-06 Diagnosis T2 hbA1C 8.1, D&E & Metformin 500mg.
09-11-06 hbA1C 5.0

Cheri - 16 Nov 2006 23:37 GMT
A Big Hunk is a wonderful fondant type flat candy bar with peanuts. It
always takes me back to my childhood. You can't always find them
anymore, which is a good thing, or maybe I'm just not looking as hard
these days. :-)
--
Cheri

Donna B wrote in message ...

>What's a Big Hunk?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>06-07-06 Diagnosis T2 hbA1C 8.1, D&E & Metformin 500mg.
>09-11-06 hbA1C 5.0
Chris Malcolm - 17 Nov 2006 09:13 GMT
>> >> > I understand you eat what would be an incredible amount of carb for me
>> >> > because you exercise very hard.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> Well, according to her reported figures she *is* in good control, very
>> good control in fact. Do you think she's lying about her figures?

> Who knows?  There is no way to verify anything here.  

Some of us find that it greatly helps the tone of newgroup
relationships to make a default presumption of innocence until proven
guilty. I have no reason to suspect Susan of lying, so I don't.

> But by reading
> what she has to say she seems to be very inactive and have many other
> medical conditions.  

That may be true, but I don't see that it has anything at all to do
with whether or not the figures she reports represent good control.

I share your enthusiasm for the great benefits of exercise. I
sometimes wonder if you hope that unmedicated T2s in good control who
aren't exercising are doing worse than they report, because that would
help you to make a stronger case for for exercising.

Signature

Chris Malcolm        cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk              DoD #205
IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Gantlet - 16 Nov 2006 18:38 GMT
Thank you Kurt.

Susan to me has become very much like a drunk on a train.
I am not saying she has a drinking problem but i would feel
just as silly bothering with her as i would a drunk on a train.
its nice to know there are a few people in here honest enough
to speak up.

Tom

>> > I understand you eat what would be an incredible amount of carb for me
>> > because you exercise very hard.
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>
> Kurt
Gantlet - 27 Nov 2006 20:12 GMT
"Kurt" <kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Not true.  Susan's idea of being in good control is eating substandard
> amont of calories per day, no carbs, and no exercise.   Tom is in good
> control and does it with diet and exercise.  Because he doesn't buy
> into the "agenda" that Susan and a few others have in here, lies like
> these are posted.

Kurt you have to realize you are talking about a liar.  do you remember just
recently she mentioned her very low carb needs because of how inactive she
is?
well after we mentioned that is only because she has the activity level of a
dead star fish she said it is only something very recent.
well do you remember the post made a year ago which of course she had
deleted but only remains in parts in replies made by you and myself.
here is a quote from her now deleted post in which she had the activity
level of someone requiring only 800 calories a day.
here is the quote.

> >  I was maintaining on 800 per day when I
> >>was eating very LF, HC.

then i replied with

> 800 what? cc's?

> Basically Susan is a liar.

yes Kurt this is very true and probably the type of person i wouldnt
bother getting an oppinion from in person.

Signature

Tom

www.TomsDiabeticDiary.com

Cheri - 27 Nov 2006 20:59 GMT
Is this what you and Kurt were talking about on MHD when you and he were
talking about "tag team mentality" and is it still a "tag team" when
different sets of people do it, or just when certain sets of people back
each other up? Just curious.

--
Cheri

Gantlet wrote in message ...

>"Kurt" <kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
>www.TomsDiabeticDiary.com
Susan - 27 Nov 2006 22:42 GMT
> Is this what you and Kurt were talking about on MHD when you and he were
> talking about "tag team mentality" and is it still a "tag team" when
> different sets of people do it, or just when certain sets of people back
> each other up? Just curious.

I think they assume that others here are sh.t stirrers like they are.
They make it clear that they email back and forth and no doubt plot
attacks on others in this group together, or plan a hostile takeover.
They probably think some of us are similarly afflicted, but it's never
happened, to my knowledge.

Now they're content with their scorched earth policy.  I guess it makes
them feel special or like they matter somewhere.

But they don't.

Susan
Susan - 27 Nov 2006 22:39 GMT
x=no-archive: yes

> Kurt you have to realize you are talking about a liar.  do you remember just
> recently she mentioned her very low carb needs because of how inactive she
> is?

You're the liar here, and it's well documented,
Copulator/SushiBoy/Cheeseburger.  You've stated an outright falsehood
here.  I never said I ate very low carb due to inactivity, in fact,
active or inactive, the effects of carbs on my bg  never changes. I eat
very low carb because I feel better on it and my numbers are best on it.
I also end up eating very low carb because I limit my carbs to
vegetables, which I eat in large quantities and variety.  Starches are
far more calorie dense.

> well after we mentioned that is only because she has the activity level of a
> dead star fish she said it is only something very recent.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>>
>>>>was eating very LF, HC.

You're just lying and making sh.t up as usual.  At least y'all are
consistent. You're consistently dishonest, divisive, ignorant and
aggressively so.

What I have consistently posted over the years is that at various times
in my life, and sometimes for extended periods of time, illness has
limited my activity severely.  That has always followed a waxing and
waning course, and the effect of carbs on my bg whether during periods
of frequent gym attendance, hiking, kayaking, treadmilling, weight
training or being housebound or bedridden, even, has always been the
same, as has my calorie requirement, little changed.  In recent weeks,
my activity level has been reduced due to the soft cast and boot on my
foot and the crutches I'm supposed to use.  I have not had to lower my
caloric level to maintain my healthy weight and bg levels consistently
below 120.  When I ate very low fat/high carb I was maintaining my
weight on 800 scrupulously weighed and documented calories daily, it's
true.  I was in rehab and increasing my activity at the time, then going
to the gym 3X per week.  When I switched to lower carb, I was able to
maintain on 1200 calories per day to maintain, and that's where I am
about now, varying between 1000-1200 per day on low carb.

I have never misrepresented my diet, my weight, my blood glucose
responses or my carb levels, but I note that you often have lied about
yours or just refused to discuss them.  My health and activity levels
are very variable over time as I've discussed often, but reduction in
activity recently brought on by my foot injury has not kept me from
using my slant board or from working out my upper body on our home gym,
though it's kept me from treadmilling.

You trolls keep hoping repeating the lies will make them true, but they
just demonstrate how low you're willing to go; no limit, and that you've
no interest in being  positive contributors to this group at all.
Divide, divide, divide, attack, attack, attack.

Susan
Gantlet - 27 Nov 2006 22:59 GMT
Signature

Tom

www.TomsDiabeticDiary.com

> x=no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> You're just lying and making sh.t up as usual.

She may be able to delete her posts but not the replies to them.

here is the link to the conversation i had with her when she mentioned that.
how much proof do you need that they LIE.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diabetes/msg/b4fceb170e487965?dmode=s
ource&hl=en


Susan"
> Sadly, physical activity, at least the amount I'm capable of, makes no
> diff worth mentioning.  I was maintaining on 800 per day when I was eating
> very LF, HC.
or
>I'm metabolically fu*ed, no two ways about it.  I have more medical issues
>than just diabetes, and some of them factor in as well.
>
> Susan

you see we can go all day showing their lies,  unlike them most times we
just dont have the time.

Tom
Susan - 27 Nov 2006 23:05 GMT
Susan"

>> Sadly, physical activity, at least the amount I'm capable of, makes no
>> diff worth mentioning.  I was maintaining on 800 per day when I was eating
>> very LF, HC.

or

>>I'm metabolically fu*ed, no two ways about it.  I have more medical issues
>>than just diabetes, and some of them factor in as well.
>>
>> Susan

>>>you see we can go all day showing their lies,  unlike them most
times we
just dont have the time.<<<<

What you posted was consistent with and  supported the truth of what I
said, and that you're a liar.

Susan
Gantlet - 28 Nov 2006 00:10 GMT
>>> deleted but only remains in parts in replies made by you and myself.
>>> here is a quote from her now deleted post in which she had the activity
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Tom

if you search this group for
"x-no-archive: yes"
you will have a hard time finding one post that does not have Susan attached
to it.
so does anyone actually believe that this is a different susan that also
used

x-no-archive: yes
same email address "Susan" <neverm...@nomail.com> wrote in message
same low caloric needs?
same insults?

and now i know.. same wheel chair.

I am not happy about this because as susan knows the next newbies
wont know just who it is that is telling them what to do dispite what the
doctor says.

BUSTED

Signature

Tom

www.TomsDiabeticDiary.com

Susan - 28 Nov 2006 00:55 GMT
wrote:

> and now i know.. same wheel chair.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> BUSTED

Bisted for what?  Your dishonesty and stupidity?  If I had been in a
wheelchair, I'd have every reason to boast about being so much more fit
than you are in spite of it.  But I haven't been.

You've lied here about almost everyone, adding Jennifer to the list
recently; she has NEVER advocated any diet plan.  You've told so many
lies here that no one finds you more than a VERY big, illiterate bad joke.

Susan
Priscilla H. Ballou - 28 Nov 2006 16:31 GMT
> if you search this group for
> "x-no-archive: yes"
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> BUSTED

Are you nuts?  Susan has never said she's in a wheelchair.

Tom, you're really getting wild in your accusations.  I think you need
help.

Priscilla
Susan - 28 Nov 2006 16:53 GMT
> Are you nuts?  Susan has never said she's in a wheelchair.
>
> Tom, you're really getting wild in your accusations.  I think you need
> help.

He's just screwing around, trolling for reactions, Priscilla.  Same as
always.

Susan
Ozgirl - 28 Nov 2006 04:28 GMT
> www.TomsDiabeticDiary.com
>> x=no-archive: yes
>>
>>> Kurt you have to realize you are talking about a liar.  do you
>>> remember just recently she mentioned her very low carb
needs
>>> because of how inactive she is?
>>
>> You're the liar here, and it's well documented,
>> Copulator/SushiBoy/Cheeseburger.  You've stated an outright falsehood
>> here.  I never said I ate very low carb due to inactivity, in fact,
>> active or inactive, the effects of carbs on my bg  never
changes. I
>> eat very low carb because I feel better on it and my
numbers are
>> best on it.
>> I also end up eating very low carb because I limit my carbs to
>> vegetables, which I eat in large quantities and variety.
Starches
>> are far more calorie dense.
>>
>>> well after we mentioned that is only because she has the activity
>>> level of a dead star fish she said it is only something
very recent.
>>> well do you remember the post made a year ago which of course she
>>> had deleted but only remains in parts in replies made by
you and
>>> myself. here is a quote from her now deleted post in
which she had
>>> the activity level of someone requiring only 800
calories a day.
>>> here is the quote.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> here is the link to the conversation i had with her when she
> mentioned that. how much proof do you need that they LIE.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diabetes/msg/b4fceb170e487965?dmode=s
ource&hl=en


> Susan"
>> Sadly, physical activity, at least the amount I'm capable of, makes
>> no diff worth mentioning.  I was maintaining on 800 per
day when I
>> was eating very LF, HC.
> or
>>I'm metabolically fu*ed, no two ways about it.  I have more medical
>>issues than just diabetes, and some of them factor in as
well.

>> Susan
>
> you see we can go all day showing their lies,  unlike them most times
> we just dont have the time.
>
> Tom

Umm, Tom, you just quoted what Susan has been saying all
day. Both match.
Cheri - 27 Nov 2006 23:05 GMT
I believe Tom has confused some of your posts with a different Susan
that was posting here for awhile. If I remember correctly, she was in a
wheelchair and had a lot of problems going on. Sometimes, back then, I
was confused as to which of you was posting too. Then she started using
an initial as well as the Susan name, so I could tell the difference.

--
Cheri

>here.  I never said I ate very low carb due to inactivity, in fact,
>active or inactive, the effects of carbs on my bg  never changes. I eat
>very low carb because I feel better on it and my numbers are best on it.
>I also end up eating very low carb because I limit my carbs to
>vegetables, which I eat in large quantities and variety.  Starches are
>far more calorie dense.
Gantlet - 27 Nov 2006 23:22 GMT
>I believe Tom has confused some of your posts with a different Susan
> that was posting here for awhile.

Susan denied it because she knew someone would say this.
not saying you dont believe it but she knew someone would say it.

however you might be right. perhaps this was another susan
that also happen to use
No Acrchive.
and had the same made up email.
"Susan" <neverm...@nomail.com>

no it was her.

If I remember correctly, she was in a
> wheelchair

i remember guy asking this susan how she got around and her answer was
wheelchair. but she wins on that account because anyone that replied left
the no archive thing in. so that post was deleted.

its the same
susan with the same no archive with the same made up email address with the
same wheel chair.
Signature

Tom

www.TomsDiabeticDiary.com

Gantlet - 27 Nov 2006 23:23 GMT
also with the same insults.

Signature

Tom

www.TomsDiabeticDiary.com

>>I believe Tom has confused some of your posts with a different Susan
>> that was posting here for awhile.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> susan with the same no archive with the same made up email address with
> the same wheel chair.
Susan - 27 Nov 2006 23:53 GMT
i remember guy asking this susan how she got around and her answer was
> wheelchair. but she wins on that account because anyone that replied left
> the no archive thing in. so that post was deleted.
>
> its the same
> susan with the same no archive with the same made up email address with
> the same wheel chair.

That's a lie, that never happened, and I told you that the last time you
posted this lie.  If I had been in a wheelchair, I'd have no problem
saying so, but I haven't, not since a week in 1983 in the hospital.

You have me confused with someone else you lie about.

Susan
Cheri - 28 Nov 2006 00:18 GMT
I know he has you confused with a different Susan. Oh well. :-)

--
Cheri

>x-no-archive: yes

>  If I had been in a wheelchair, I'd have no problem
>saying so, but I haven't, not since a week in 1983 in the hospital.
>
>You have me confused with someone else you lie about.
>
>Susan
Cheri - 28 Nov 2006 00:08 GMT
Nope, there were two different Susans here at one time. In fact I
believe I was the one who asked her if she could add an initial or
something to her nic, since there was already a Susan here. My short
term memory isn't all that good, but my long term memory is pretty
damned good. :-)

--
Cheri

Gantlet wrote in message ...

>>I believe Tom has confused some of your posts with a different Susan
>> that was posting here for awhile.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
>www.TomsDiabeticDiary.com