 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / February 2007Overview of carbohydrates in one's diet...
If you would like a reasoned overview of how carbohydrates fit into one's diet, here's a easy read on the subject. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates.html Alan Moorman >If you would like a reasoned overview of how carbohydrates >fit into one's diet, here's a easy read on the subject. > >http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates.html > >Alan Moorman Of the various "official" dietary sources I consider the Harvard School of Public health more sensible than most. But, boyoboy am I tired of seeing this statement: "While there is some evidence that a low-carbohydrate diet may help people lose weight more quickly than a low-fat diet, no one knows the long-term effects of eating little or no carbohydrates." First, is that still true? Second, if so, why? "Low-carb" as a concept has been around for a long time, long before Atkins et al. Atkins "Diet Revolution" was published over thirty years ago. Why haven't the studies been done to find out those "long-term effects of eating little or no carbohydrates." Considering that good dietary advice may save millions of lives - and bad dietary advice kills more millions - surely answering that question one way or the other should be one of the major priority issues in world health. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/ http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/ latest: Epidaurus >>If you would like a reasoned overview of how carbohydrates >>fit into one's diet, here's a easy read on the subject. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg >Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. I agree that studies should be done. Moreover, if it is a fact that there are no carbohydrates that are necessary to our diets, it would be imperative to have some good studies done to determine the effect of the lack of nutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc.) in the missing carbohydrates might visit on the dieters. Alan Moorman > Moreover, if it is a fact that there are no carbohydrates > that are necessary to our diets, it would be imperative to > have some good studies done to determine the effect of the > lack of nutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc.) in the missing > carbohydrates might visit on the dieters. That statement of yours presumes that people who eat less foods containing high carbs also eat nutritionally deficient lower carb foods. That has not been my experience of how people eat, those who eat lower carb. >> Moreover, if it is a fact that there are no carbohydrates >> that are necessary to our diets, it would be imperative to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >lower carb foods. That has not been my experience of how >people eat, those who eat lower carb. No. You presume that. If a person eats few carbs, regardless of what they are, they probably reduce their intake of vitamins/minerals usually contained in carbs. If a person eats no carbs, they probably will have to make up the missing vitamins/minerals from some other source. But, since we don't think the research has been done, we're wondering why. As I said before, you seem to be on a one-note crusade. Alan Moorman > If a person eats few carbs, regardless of what they are, > they probably reduce their intake of vitamins/minerals > usually contained in carbs. Reall? Which vitamins and minerals are found more abundantly in starches than in colorful, leafy, high fiber veggies? Susan >>> Moreover, if it is a fact that there are no carbohydrates >>> that are necessary to our diets, it would be imperative to >>> have some good studies done to determine the effect of the >>> lack of nutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc.) in the missing >>> carbohydrates might visit on the dieters. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No. You presume that. How do you explain this remark then: "it would be imperative to >>> have some good studies done to determine the effect of the >>> lack of nutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc.) in the missing >>> carbohydrates might visit on the dieters." Which missing carbs would this be? > If a person eats few carbs, regardless of what they are, > they probably reduce their intake of vitamins/minerals > usually contained in carbs. Probably? If I ate 60 gr carb from a bread or pasta source and 15 gr carb from a variety of colourful raw vegetables, which food type would I be getting more nutrition out of? You need a better answer than just "probably". To base an argument on "probably" just doesn't work. > If a person eats no carbs, they probably will have to make > up the missing vitamins/minerals from some other source. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > As I said before, you seem to be on a one-note crusade. You still haven't named what my supposed crusade is. I must warn you though, if you think my crusade is about proving that a person can obtain better and more nutritional value from lower carb vegetable and low GI fruit sources than starches then you are right. I can also challenge you to prove your argument (which seems to be that you can't get proper nutrition if you lower or cut out starch carbs), but do remember I have been studying nutrition in-depth for more than 30 years. In alt.support.diabetes on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:51:10 +1100 in Msg.# <12tht7chipvs1e7@news.supernews.com>, "Ozgirl" <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote: > You still haven't named what my supposed crusade is. Just reading along here, it seems to be the green leafy crusade. <G>  SignatureDonnaB 06-07-06 Diagnosis T2 hbA1C 8.1, D&E & Metformin 500mg. ..................09-11-06 hbA1C 5.0 ..................12-20-06 hbA1C 5.2 > In alt.support.diabetes on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:51:10 +1100 in Msg.# > <12tht7chipvs1e7@news.supernews.com>, "Ozgirl" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Just reading along here, it seems to be the green leafy crusade. <G> Lol, could be, but green leafy is just one part of my overall diet, 3/4 of my plate consists of many different veggies both raw and cooked. In alt.support.diabetes on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:29:22 +1100 in Msg.# <12thvetc8spfl5e@news.supernews.com>, "Ozgirl" <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote: > > In alt.support.diabetes on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:51:10 +1100 > in Msg.# [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > overall diet, 3/4 of my plate consists of many different > veggies both raw and cooked. I know. I just thought it was a good joke. Sometimes humor goes right on by here. <G> SignatureDonnaB 06-07-06 Diagnosis T2 hbA1C 8.1, D&E & Metformin 500mg. ..................09-11-06 hbA1C 5.0 ..................12-20-06 hbA1C 5.2 > In alt.support.diabetes on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:29:22 +1100 in Msg.# > <12thvetc8spfl5e@news.supernews.com>, "Ozgirl" [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I know. I just thought it was a good joke. Sometimes humor goes right > on by here. <G> Well when you are fixated on leafy greens you see it everywhere! : > In alt.support.diabetes on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:29:22 +1100 : in Msg.# [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] : Well when you are fixated on leafy greens you see it : everywhere! i saw what you did in that other newsgroup In alt.support.diabetes on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:16:26 -0700 in Msg.# <W_qdnTXsP5T0D0fYnZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d@giganews.com>, "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > : > In alt.support.diabetes on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:29:22 +1100 > : in Msg.# [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > : Well when you are fixated on leafy greens you see it > : everywhere! Yeah, easy to hide behind those huge leaves as well as to part them & peer out. > i saw what you did in that other newsgroup Is whatever it is relevant to these diabetic newsgroups & this thread? SignatureDonnaB 06-07-06 Diagnosis T2 hbA1C 8.1, D&E & Metformin 500mg. ..................09-11-06 hbA1C 5.0 ..................12-20-06 hbA1C 5.2 >>>> Moreover, if it is a fact that there are no >carbohydrates [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >do remember I have been studying nutrition in-depth for more >than 30 years. You and Susan seem to assume that when you say lower carb that you mean all you eat is leafy green veggies. You also assume that lower carb means no starches. That's not necessarily true. Get a grip on your sermon and realize that some of us haven't heard it all before. Sorry, but one of you set me off in the very first post because you were preaching in shorthand, and you seemed a little incredulous that I didn't grasp your entire concept. I know that happens when you post in a group -- over time you use more and more shorthand because you've said it so many times. Well, I lurk here, and have, for a dozen years. It isn't a regular visit for me, but I scan the headers about once a week to see if they might point to something new I could learn. I apparently have missed your obviously lengthy tradition of low-carb posts. But, you really are much too short and acerbic to someone who hasn't had the benefit of the finer points of your sermon! :-) Alan Moorman >>>>> Moreover, if it is a fact that there are no carbohydrates >>>>> that are necessary to our diets, it would be imperative to >>>>> have some good studies done to determine the effect of the >>>>> lack of nutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc.) in the missing >>>>> carbohydrates might visit on the dieters. >>>> >>>>That statement of yours presumes that people who eat less >>>>foods containing high carbs also eat nutritionally deficient >>>>lower carb foods. That has not been my experience of how >>>>people eat, those who eat lower carb. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>to >>>>> have some good studies done to determine the effect of the >>>>> lack of nutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc.) in the missing >>>>> carbohydrates might visit on the dieters." Which missing carbs >>>>> would this be? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>> >>> But, since we don't think the research has been done, we're >>> wondering why. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You and Susan seem to assume that when you say lower carb > that you mean all you eat is leafy green veggies. I have said that where? I have been posting in these 3 goups for something like 8 years, I talk often about my meal plans. green leafy veggies and that's all? Hardly. I can't even see how you even presumed that from our conversations of late. > You also assume that lower carb means no starches. That's > not necessarily true. Once again, I never said that. But starches don't give much value so why waste the precious carbs on a few spoonfuls of potato when I eat can eat a larger quantity of non starch vegetables, be more satisfied and KNOW that I am getting far better nutrition. > Get a grip on your sermon and realize that some of us > haven't heard it all before. Well perhaps all these years you claim to have been in the groups have been spent ignoring my posts. And waht exactly is my sermon? And while we are at it, what is my agenda? I rather like to know exactly what I am accused of. > Sorry, but one of you set me off in the very first post > because you were preaching in shorthand, and you seemed a > little incredulous that I didn't grasp your entire concept. I have been very clear from the beginning. I don't do short hand, I have even tried to expand my normal clear writing to make it even simpler for you and still you misunderstand everything I say. Not MY problem. Perhaps you could give an example. > I know that happens when you post in a group -- over time > you use more and more shorthand because you've said it so > many times. Once again, give an example of my shorthand. > Well, I lurk here, and have, for a dozen years. It isn't a > regular visit for me, but I scan the headers about once a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I apparently have missed your obviously lengthy tradition of > low-carb posts. Must have, because if you had read any of my posts you would have noticed that my aim is to control and maintain bg WITHOUT any loss of nutrition. I make every bite count, I don't regularly waste precious calories or carbs on non nutritive foods. You don't have to agree with my way of eating, you don't have to try it but it would be nice if you didn't criticise it and make wild allegations which you refuse to substantiate. > But, you really are much too short and acerbic to someone > who hasn't had the benefit of the finer points of your > sermon! You are the one who claims to have read up on nutrition, you are the one who refuses to ask for help if someone writes in a manner that you don't understand, your problem, not everyone else's. I really can't stand people who whinge over things they can do something about and you CAN do something about requesting a simplified explanation for a post you don't understand. Would you walk out of your doctor's surgery without asking for an explanation of something you didn't understand? Is that short and acerbic enough for you? >>>>>> Moreover, if it is a fact that there are no >carbohydrates [quoted text clipped - 138 lines] > >Is that short and acerbic enough for you? Oh, get over it! You were never clear about what you meant, except for: 1. carbs aren't necessary (which I now believe.) 2. green leafy veggies. Yes, I've skimmed this group longer than you have, and haven't delved into it much in the last several years because there wasn't much new -- that I could see. So, I obviously missed your 8 - year sermons. Get off your high horse and realize that you weren't communicating well, or this thread wouldn't have gone on the way it has. I'll get off mine, and apologize for not being a good conversationalist. It IS one of my failings. But, I was replying in kind. Alan Moorman > Oh, get over it! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 2. green leafy veggies. I don't have anything to get over, you are accusing me of things, I am clarifying my position. Even when I clarify you still find something else, green leafy veggies? You have mistaken me for someone else. > Get off your high horse and realize that you weren't > communicating well, or this thread wouldn't have gone on the > way it has. I wasn't communicating to make YOU understand - that's the problem (a big difference to accusing someone of not communicating well), nor were a lot of people. When a lot of people can't understand why you are not understanding plain simple English then you need to wonder about whose fault it really is. You need to get past that and realise the problem lies with you, not everyone else. You have raised this communication problem with a number of people now in a number of different threads and topics. >>>>>> Moreover, if it is a fact that there are no >carbohydrates [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] >even see how you even presumed that from our conversations >of late. 1. I did not have the benefit of your 8 years of postings. 2. Of late you kept saying something like "a plateful of large green leafy stuff" Why shouldn't I mis-understand you? ? ? >> You also assume that lower carb means no starches. That's >> not necessarily true. > >Once again, I never said that. Yes you did. Over and over you've implied that lower carbs mean those large green leafy veggies. To me, that mean no starches. Right? >But starches don't give much >value so why waste the precious carbs on a few spoonfuls of >potato when I eat can eat a larger quantity of non starch >vegetables, be more satisfied and KNOW that I am getting far >better nutrition. Maybe a person NEEDS a potato now and then for the sake of their mental well-being? I doubt that all of the people who read this group are perfect in their eating habits -- at least by your standards! >> Get a grip on your sermon and realize that some of us >> haven't heard it all before. > >Well perhaps all these years you claim to have been in the >groups have been spent ignoring my posts. True. Not you in particular, but I have skimmed the headers for these groups every week or two and have not found much of interest -- based on the headers. There is a huge amount of information in any news group that gets recycled over and over and over and over because new people are always entering the group, and they need to be exposed to that information. And, I'm glad there are people who will help those new people. But I don't have the time or the interest to read all those posts, and I have, obviously, missed your long, superbly informed posts. >And waht exactly >is my sermon? And while we are at it, what is my agenda? I >rather like to know exactly what I am accused of. You should pay more attention to the actual impact of your posts - - how compete the information is. You have it in your head, but if you don't be clear EVERY time you deal with a subject, people will miss a good deal of what you say. >> Sorry, but one of you set me off in the very first post >> because you were preaching in shorthand, and you seemed a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >everything I say. Not MY problem. Perhaps you could give an >example. plate full of green leafy vegetables. The only carbs you eat are: plate full of green leafy vegetables. That's what you said, and that's the example you gave. And that's the one you kept repeating, and repeating. What is a person supposed to think? Huh? >> I know that happens when you post in a group -- over time >> you use more and more shorthand because you've said it so >> many times. > >Once again, give an example of my shorthand. plate full of green leafy vegetables. >> Well, I lurk here, and have, for a dozen years. It isn't >a [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >Is that short and acerbic enough for you? plate full of green leafy vegetables.plate full of green leafy vegetables.plate full of green leafy vegetables.plate full of green leafy vegetables.plate full of green leafy vegetables.plate full of green leafy vegetables.plate full of green leafy vegetables. Now, THAT'S short and acerbic. And not what you really meant, is it, because it excludes a whole range of other healthy carbs. No, not starches. Just other vegetables. I think we've taken this as far, if not farther than we should. We're so sure that each of us is so good at this that we aren't about to give and inch. Bye. I'll be around if the headers look interesting. Alan Moorman > The only carbs you eat are: plate full of green leafy > vegetables. That's what you said, and that's the example > you gave. And that's the one you kept repeating, and > repeating. "DonnaB shallotpeel wrote: > In alt.support.diabetes on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:51:10 +1100 in Msg.# > <12tht7chipvs1e7@news.supernews.com>, "Ozgirl" > <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote: > >> You still haven't named what my supposed crusade is. > > Just reading along here, it seems to be the green leafy crusade. <G> >>Lol, could be, but green leafy is just one part of my >>overall diet, 3/4 of my plate consists of many different >>veggies both raw and cooked." Hard to see where I said what you are claiming ("The only carbs you eat are: plate full of green leafy vegetables. That's what you said, and that's the example you gave") in the post I just pasted here for you. Or this: "I talk often about my meal plans. green leafy veggies and that's all? Hardly." You know, it's pretty rude to accuse people of things when you admit you only skim over posts. There is lots you don't know about me. For example just because I state a truth (there are no eseential carbohydrates) doesn't mean I don't eat carbohydrates. I eat carbs every single day of my life, I just don't waste my carb allowance on a small amount of starch when I can eat bigger and better with lots of different vegetables and low GI fruits. And yes I do on occasion have potato or rice or pasta, depending on circumstances in my life. I am not an advocate for zero carbs, never have been, never will be, I am a string advocate for getting as much nutrition out of food as possible, not a bottle. See how insulted I could be when you make certain claims about me, (when I am very verbal about nutrition) without having read anything of my past posts except a few over the last few days? > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:51:10 +1100, "Ozgirl" > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > You and Susan seem to assume that when you say lower carb > that you mean all you eat is leafy green veggies. > You also assume that lower carb means no starches. That's > not necessarily true. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > who hasn't had the benefit of the finer points of your > sermon! Alan, There are three groups this thread is being posted to, so I'll just speak for my experiences here in a.s.d. The majority of posters in a.s.d. profess to eat "low carb" but I have yet to hear a consensus of what low carb means so that's where a lot of the problems come from when it's discussed. From what I have gleaned most really, in fact, eat a moderate carb diet. Only a few make a big deal about it and seem to have a "carbs are evil" agenda, lumping all carbs into one main category. For instance, they will tell you that they'd rather eat leafy green veggies to get their nutrients instead of wasting those carbs on bread and potatoes and all those wasteful carbs that aren't very nutritious. What they fail to mention, or seem to conveniently ignore, is that there are certain carbs, whole grain brown rice for instance, that is packed with nutrients and because of the fiber it contains is very easy on the blood sugars. Some of these whole grain products have much more bang for the buck, nutrition wise, then a lot of other foods that they say is the mainstay of their diets. They also don't recognize everyone's need to have some diversity in their diet. Portion control works for many here and having a small serving of some of the tastier foods is possible without reaking havoc on one's blood sugar control. As far as the scientific cites, I agree with you that they will go over the heads of 99% of the posters here. There are only a few posters here who post those things and they seem to do it in an effort to impress others so their advice will be more revered. In a.s.d. you will find most of the posters good people who are very supportive, helpful, and appreciative. It's just a vocal few who seem to want us to believe that when it comes to diabetes they are an authority. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence will realize that diabetes is a complicated disease and that an amateur can't begin to understand it as well as a professional doctor, no matter how many books they read or Internet cites they post. Bottom line is we need to all find something that works for us. Especially when it comes to diet. Keeping our blood sugar numbers as close to normal as possible will give us the best fighting chance against the terrible complications that go with this disease. Working with a doctor and nutritionist is key. Getting one's diabetes care from a newsgroup of amateurs is foolish. The low fat/low carb debate goes on just about every day in here and probably will for years to come. It kind of reminds me of those old Miller Lite beer commercials...tastes great/less filling. :) Glad to see you posting and I appreciate your comments. Kurt >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:51:10 +1100, "Ozgirl" >> [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] >nutrients and because of the fiber it contains is very easy on the >blood sugars. That's definitely a YMMV statement. May be easy on your BGs, but brown rice certainly isn't easy on mine. I still eat it, in small portions with curry or similar dishes in the evening - but it spikes me only slightly less than white rice. >Some of these whole grain products have much more bang >for the buck, nutrition wise, then a lot of other foods that they say >is the mainstay of their diets. Which? Compared to What? >They also don't recognize everyone's >need to have some diversity in their diet. Actually, they advocate a much wider diversity, rather than a narrow range of starches. > Portion control works for >many here and having a small serving of some of the tastier foods is >possible without reaking havoc on one's blood sugar control. Absolutely agreed. >>As far as the scientific cites, I agree with you that they will go >over the heads of 99% of the posters here. There are only a few >posters here who post those things and they seem to do it in an effort >to impress others so their advice will be more revered. Let me read that again. Nope, it still reads the same. *sigh* Supporting evidence is by that definition simply provided to impress, not to support. Yeah, right. >In a.s.d. you will find most of the posters good people who are very >supportive, helpful, and appreciative. It's just a vocal few who seem [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >understand it as well as a professional doctor, no matter how many >books they read or Internet cites they post. Of course you're absolutely right there. To the doctor it's a matter of years of professional training (which for a GP may have included at least a day - or even a week - specifically on diabetes); to us it's only a matter of life and death. >Bottom line is we need to all find something that works for us. >Especially when it comes to diet. Keeping our blood sugar numbers as >close to normal as possible will give us the best fighting chance >against the terrible complications that go with this disease. Absolutely agreed again. > Working >with a doctor and nutritionist is key. Getting one's diabetes care >from a newsgroup of amateurs is foolish. Agreed there too. However, learning valid information, rather than "getting one's care from" a newsgroup can be a lifesaver if properly assessed with common sense. >The low fat/low carb debate goes on just about every day in here and >probably will for years to come. It kind of reminds me of those old [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Kurt Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/ http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/ latest: Epidaurus . What they fail to > mention, or seem to conveniently ignore, is that there are certain > carbs, whole grain brown rice for instance, that is packed with > nutrients and because of the fiber it contains is very easy on the > blood sugars. For you, and you forgot to add that you are a type 1 on insulin, shame. Any rice including brown causes a large rise for me for a reasonable serve (1/4 cup cooked isn't a reasonable size in my opinion). Some of these whole grain products have much more bang > for the buck, nutrition wise, then a lot of other foods that they say > is the mainstay of their diets. Outline the nutrition in the whole grains and how it is superior to "the other foods" you are comparing it to. > Portion control works for many here and having a small serving of some > of the tastier foods is possible without reaking havoc on one's blood sugar > control. Brown rice is tasty? Each to their own I guess. > As far as the scientific cites, I agree with you that they will go > over the heads of 99% of the posters here. There are only a few > posters here who post those things and they seem to do it in an effort > to impress others so their advice will be more revered. What a load of crap. It is usually people talking about things that go over and beyond what some people care to know about. There are others who are very interested in the biological pathogenesis of diabetes and how they can aim for optimal care. I prefer to take any opportunity I can get to learn how to maintain my body in an optimal state. If you choose not to then pass the threads over. To criticise people for wanting to know more and have the ability to understand more is sour grapes at best. Shame on you again. I am not sure you realise just how pathetic your above paragraph is. > In a.s.d. you will find most of the posters good people who are very > supportive, helpful, and appreciative. It's just a vocal few who seem [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > understand it as well as a professional doctor, no matter how many > books they read or Internet cites they post. Wrong. It is very easy to know more about diabetes than your local GP, very easy. > The low fat/low carb debate goes on just about every day in here and > probably will for years to come. It kind of reminds me of those old > Miller Lite beer commercials...tastes great/less filling. :) On the contrary, eating a plateload of lower carb vegetables is very filling, very kind to the bg's and packed with nutrition. So, let's have that comparison between whole grains and the "other foods" eh? > . What they fail to > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > For you, and you forgot to add that you are a type 1 on > insulin, shame. Every one of us is different. I don't see you listing that you are a Type 2 using D&E in every post you make. I know you love to categorize everyone, but there are Type 2's who include some whole grains in their diet. You gave the impression to Alan that all you eat is leafy green vegetables. My type or your type has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that whole grains are easy on blood sugars because of the fiber that affects how it is broken down in the digestion process. >Any rice including brown causes a large > rise for me for a reasonable serve (1/4 cup cooked isn't a > reasonable size in my opinion). Who said reasonable size according to your definition? I said someone might be able to include a small portion in their diet. > Some of these whole grain products have much more bang > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > serving of some > of the tastier foods is possible without > reaking havoc on one's blood sugar > control. > Brown rice is tasty? >Each to their own I guess. My God, I think she's got it!!!! > > As far as the scientific cites, I agree with you that they > will go [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Wrong. It is very easy to know more about diabetes than your > local GP, very easy. Maybe your local GP, but not mine. Diabetes is not limited to what you put on your plate or which kind of medication to take. It involves an understanding of the entire human body. > > The low fat/low carb debate goes on just about every day > in here and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is very filling, very kind to the bg's and packed with > nutrition. Not everybody wants to eat a plateload of lower carb vegetables day in, day out. Including you. You reported just the other day that you had a fried egg with ketchup on a slice of low carb whole grain bread. That's the kind of diversity I was talking about. > So, let's have that comparison between whole grains and the > "other foods" eh? GIYF Kurt >> . What they fail to >> >> > mention, or seem to conveniently ignore, is that there are certain >> > carbs, whole grain brown rice for instance, that is packed >> with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Every one of us is different. But you didn't say that, you made a statement, no other explanations or a YMMV etc. You gave the impression to Alan that all you > eat is leafy green vegetables. Show me where, show me the posts where I said that, put up or shut up. My type or your type has absolutely > nothing to do with the fact that whole grains are easy on blood sugars > because of the fiber that affects how it is broken down in the > digestion process. It absolutely does. Another statement without a YMMV, for as many that may have no rise in bg, there will be lots who will. You don't say that at all. You are giving an absolute statement there. You refuse to qualify that statement, shame on you. Brown rice is absolutely not easy on my bg, I am not alone in this. >>Any rice including brown causes a large >> rise for me for a reasonable serve (1/4 cup cooked isn't a >> reasonable size in my opinion). > > Who said reasonable size according to your definition? I said someone > might be able to include a small portion in their diet. Is 1/4 cup or less worth it to you? I would get nothing out of 1/4 cup cup of brown rice except a rise, it would rob me of some of my proven carb limit and thus i would receive less nutrients because there is bugger all in 1/4 cup or less of brown rice. >> Some of these whole grain products have much more bang >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Outline the nutrition in the whole grains and how it is >> superior to "the other foods" you are comparing it to. I knew you couldn't. You'd be hard put even naming the "other foods" let alone comparing them to the wonderful grains. >> Wrong. It is very easy to know more about diabetes than your >> local GP, very easy. > > Maybe your local GP, but not mine. Diabetes is not limited to what > you put on your plate or which kind of medication to take. It > involves an understanding of the entire human body. It is a great part of type 2. You should have stayed that ficticious type 2 and you would have found out all this. >> > The low fat/low carb debate goes on just about every day >> in here and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > had a fried egg with ketchup on a slice of low carb whole grain > bread. That's the kind of diversity I was talking about. I never said I ate like that for breakfast, I have to eat way less carb then and a slice of 7gr net carb grain bread fits perfectly. So does an egg. You have seen my meal plans often enough now, you refer to it often enough. >> So, let's have that comparison between whole grains and the >> "other foods" eh? > > GIYF Not sure what that means but I can guess that it means, you have no clue how to back up your statements on that subject so you opt out of answering again. I knew you wouldn't because you are so predictable when you troll. You speak hoping your misinformation will have an impact on those who don't know much yet, your satisfaction is stating something that sounds knowledgeable and then you walk away from it. Well it doesn't work, you know sh.t all about what you are trying to get people to believe and have no clue how to prove yourself. SignatureTom www.TomsDiabeticDiary.com "Ozgirl" <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote in message > Is 1/4 cup or less worth it to you? I would get nothing out > of 1/4 cup cup of brown rice except a rise, it would rob me > of some of my proven carb limit sure some can replace the whole grain carbs and eat about 50 boxes of frozen brocolli a day or replace the difference with more fat. >>> Some of these whole grain products have much more bang >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "other foods" let alone comparing them to the wonderful > grains. I will play. but lets face it. you are a supporter of higher fat and protien diets. both low fat and low carb eat low carb veggies. but being I allow more carbs that does mean I can eat more low carb veggies :). I could basically eat 200 carbs of low carb veggies a day. how many carbs do you eat? . >>> > The low fat/low carb debate goes on just about every > day [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> > Miller Lite beer commercials...tastes great/less > filling. but we get stuck with . less carbs / more fat. >> Is 1/4 cup or less worth it to you? I would get nothing out >> of 1/4 cup cup of brown rice except a rise, it would rob me >> of some of my proven carb limit > > sure some can replace the whole grain carbs and eat about 50 boxes of > frozen brocolli a day or replace the difference with more fat. Why do you keep mentioning broccoli? This is getting as lame as Alan M's belief that I claim to eat nothing but leafy greens. There is more to vegetables than broccoli and leafy greens. Researching the nutrients in different kinds (and colours) of vegetables makes fascinating reading. >>>> Some of these whole grain products have much more bang >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I will play. but lets face it. you are a supporter of higher fat and > protien diets. I eat about 60 gr protein a day. High protein? I don't think so. I don't have any higher than the loosely recommended daily amount of fat, I say loosely because fat is another thing that has no official RDI. I eat very low trans and sat fat, my fats are made up of fats known to have a beneficial effect on the body in some way. But you still didn't name the so called "other foods" that need comparing to whole grains. > both low fat and low carb eat low carb veggies. but being I allow > more carbs that does mean I can eat more low carb veggies :). > I could basically eat 200 carbs of low carb veggies a day. > how many carbs do you eat? My carbs come predominantly from the large intake of low carb, vegetables, cooked and raw - limited amounts of yoghurt (low fat), my one slice of 7 gr net low carb grain bread, some nuts, some low GI fruits (strawberries and blueberries mostly) and brewer's yeast. I eat 9 times a day, each meal and snack is low carb in itself. I don't get any significant rises in my bg at all and I can safely eat every 2 hours.of my waking time. That way I can actually eat more nutritious food than if I ate 3 times a day but larger meals (by larger I mean higher carb). The aim of the game is to keep my bg's even and well within normal non diabetic range, without any loss of nutrients, without invoking the release of high amounts of insulin and without compromising the "emotional" part of eating. >>> Is 1/4 cup or less worth it to you? I would get nothing >out [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Why do you keep mentioning broccoli? I really LIKE broccoli! (Ok, back to lurking.) Alan Moorman >>>> Is 1/4 cup or less worth it to you? I would get nothing out >>>> of 1/4 cup cup of brown rice except a rise, it would rob me >>>> of some of my proven carb limit >>> >>> sure some can replace the whole grain carbs and eat about 50 boxes >>> of frozen brocolli a day or replace the difference with more fat. >>Why do you keep mentioning broccoli? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Alan Moorman I relly like broccoli too but I eat much more than one type of vegetable every meal and I don't eat 50 boxes, whatever that means. Broccoli comes in boxes? > > On Feb 18, 9:19?pm, "Ozgirl" <are_we_there_...@maccas.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > But you didn't say that, you made a statement, no other > explanations or a YMMV etc. Everything....I repeat....everything is a YMMV when it comes to food. Since you don't use it everytime you talk about food, why are you insisting that I do? Besides a whole grain WILL be easier on everyone's bg compared to say processed white rice. > You gave the impression to Alan that all you > > > eat is leafy green vegetables. > > Show me where, show me the posts where I said that, put up > or shut up. Never said you "said" it...you gave him that impression...that's what I said...not what you said. > My type or your type has absolutely > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > as many that may have no rise in bg, there will be lots who > will. Lots? Less with whole grain. And given the portion size, many could tolerate it. >You don't say that at all. You are giving an absolute > statement there. There are no absolutes...except maybe your ranting...which is absolutely wrought with anger. >You refuse to qualify that statement, shame > on you. Brown rice is absolutely not easy on my bg, I am not > alone in this. And neither is the person who can tolerate brown rice. My suggestion is always to try it before eliminating it from one's diet. Reading you, a newbie would probably just eliminate it without seeing if they can tolerate it or not. > >>Any rice including brown causes a large > >> rise for me for a reasonable serve (1/4 cup cooked isn't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Is 1/4 cup or less worth it to you? Sure, because variety in my diet is important. I read in here all the time about people who eat all kinds of foods like ice cream, or chocolate, or other temptations but they do so in portion control. A diet to me of red meat and leafy green vegetables would get very boring. >I would get nothing out > of 1/4 cup cup of brown rice except a rise, it would rob me > of some of my proven carb limit and thus i would receive > less nutrients because there is bugger all in 1/4 cup or > less of brown rice. I think you have such a block in your head about whole grains that you wouldn't eat them even if you could tolerate some. > >> Some of these whole grain products have much more bang > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> Outline the nutrition in the whole grains and how it is > >> superior to "the other foods" you are comparing it to. I've done that in here before...you are the master of the search engine...look it up. Here are just a couple of facts you'll learn with a simple google search about whole grains: "Whole grains contain healthy fibre, vitamins B and E, minerals (zinc, copper, iron, manganese, magnesium and selenium) and phytochemicals (beneficial chemical compounds like phytosterols, lignans and saponins). Whole grains Recent research links whole grains to a number of disease-fighting benefits. It suggests that antioxidants contained in whole grains may work with other compounds, including fibre, to reduce cholesterol and overall risk for heart disease. Research has also shown that whole grains appear to play an important role in reducing the risk of certain cancers and type 2 diabetes. For most of us, the fibre in whole grains has always been identified as a benefit to overall bowel health. It helps to remove waste products, supports the growth of healthy bacteria and promotes regularity." > I knew you couldn't. You'd be hard put even naming the > "other foods" let alone comparing them to the wonderful > grains. I'd say whole grains have more bang for their buck than eggs, fatty red meats, cheese, eating only leafy green vegetables, ketchup, diet soda, bacon, pizza, hamburger patty wrapped in lettuce, and many other foods. If one has a problem with whole grains then it would behoove them to adapt portion size or maybe increase the amount of exercise they do each day. They are part of a healthy diet everywhere but in a.s.d. > >> Wrong. It is very easy to know more about diabetes than > your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It is a great part of type 2. You should have stayed that > ficticious type 2 and you would have found out all this. I knew at some point you'd drag that back up. It was a one time mistake on my part and I'm done apologizing for it. But it must have been fun for you to type in this post because it is kerosene that feeds the fire of your latest tantrum. > >> > The low fat/low carb debate goes on just about every > day [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I never said I ate like that for breakfast I never said you ate that for breakfast... And you keep dodging my point about diversity in one's diet. It's important. You eat those other things because, although you could exist I suppose on meat and leafy green vegetables, you want to do more than just eat to exist. >I have to eat > way less carb then and a slice of 7gr net carb grain bread > fits perfectly. So does an egg. My point is that you do include whole grains into your diet. You do value them to some point, even though you say you a) can't tolerate them and b) find that there are other foods that you want to spend your carbs on >You have seen my meal plans > often enough now, you refer to it often enough. I see what you report eating from time to time, but how do I know that's what you eat just because you say it is? > >> So, let's have that comparison between whole grains and > the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not sure what that means but I can guess that it means Google Is Your Friend >you > have no clue how to back up your statements on that subject > so you opt out of answering again. I knew you wouldn't > because you are so predictable when you troll. And you are so predictable when you throw a tantrum and have to resort to name calling to prove you know so much more than anyone else. When you call me a troll, you are the one who is trolling. >You speak > hoping your misinformation will have an impact on those who > don't know much yet No, that's your m.o. The only impact I want to have on someone who doesn't know much yet is to encourage them never think they have all the answers like the know-it-alls in here do. I am the first to tell them to work with professionals to determine their needs and not people in here who might tell them not to eat certain foods just because they can't. I'd also be the first to admit that I don't know everything about diabetes, not just theirs, but my own as well. That every day is another adventure into the unknown and I don't think I'll ever figure this disease out. >your satisfaction is stating something > that sounds knowledgeable and then you walk away from it. Like diabetes, you think you have me all figured out...and like diabetes, you prove more and more that you don't have a clue about what I am or what I stand for. You can insult me and kick and scream and stomp your foot all you want but it doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong. > Well it doesn't work, you know sh.t all about what you are > trying to get people to believe and have no clue how to > prove yourself. Yeah, whatever. Kurt > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > "Whole grains contain healthy fibre, vitamins B and E, minerals (zinc, > copper, iron, manganese, magnesium and selenium) and phytochemicals > (beneficial chemical compounds like phytosterols, lignans and > saponins). Kurt I asked you, many times, what is in whole grains that you can't get in foods that have lower carb counts. Fibre: psyllium husk for one, vegetables and fruits (plenty of lower GI whole fruits available). Vitamin B's: (no need to break down the sources for individual B's because most B's are found in a lot of the same foods) brewer's yeast, liver, eggs, pork, nuts, fish, cheese (doesn't need to be full fat cheese), green leafy veggies, beef (lean is fine, and other lean meats like poultry), beans (some can tolerate beans better than grains), soy beans, wheat germ, almonds, mushrooms, pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, yoghurt, beets (which I tolerate well). Vitamin E: Wheat germ oil, 1 tablespoon will give you 100% of the RDA, almonds, sunflower seed kernels, some other nuts, peanut butter, some oils etc etc, not hard to find adequate sources of Vit E. Iron: heme: animal proteins (just 3 ounces of chicken liver gives 70% of RDA. Non heme: 1 slice whole grain bread gives only 6% RDA, vegetables and bean sources are better value. Beans or tofu and some spinach plus 3 ounces chicken liver and there you have your RDA. Zinc: Oysters, yum, huge amount of zinc. Beans, nuts, some seafoods, dairy. 6 oysters gives 100% RDA, imagine that. 3 ounces of lean beef gives 30%. Magnesium: halibut, cashews, almonds, soy beans, spinach, yoghurt, other nuts, peanut butter. Manganese: nuts, bran, fruits, green, leafy vegetables, and tea. Copper: Barley (Low GI), tomato juice, clams, mushrooms, sweet potato (works well for me), crab, lobster, oysters, nuts, sees, beans, lentils. Seafood and livers are best sources. Selenium: Brazil nuts, very good source. Selenium is a trace element, just 1-2 brazil nuts will do it. Phytochemicals: Phytosterols: pumpkin seeds. Saponins: parsley, celery, soy products. Lignans: flax seeds. Don't forget the alliums, your garlic, onions, leeks, chives etc. Quentin Grady's posts are priceless. Fruit and vegetables, your one stop shop for phytochemicals. > > "Whole grains contain healthy fibre, vitamins B and E, > minerals (zinc, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Kurt I asked you, many times I've probably answered you but since you don't respond, or snip most of my posts out when I take my valuable time to respond to you, it's hard to tell if you got my response. >what is in whole grains that > you can't get in foods that have lower carb counts. Taste for one. Variety for another. One could actually get all the nutrients they need from a feeding tube, or perhaps taking in all nutrition in pill form like the Jetsons, but what kind of life is that to live. I would ask you: Why do you eat the foods you do when you could get the same nutrition by eating other kinds of foods that would also be kind to your blood glucose? Sea vegetables, for instance; why don't you replace your low carb vegetables with those? They are packed with nutrition? You seem to think that all I eat is brown rice. Not true. Whole grains are about 25% of my diet. A typical dinner for me is salmon, whole grains, sea vegetables, salad, and other more traditional vegetables, and some kind of fruit. What I've asked you many times is why you seem to put whole grains in the taboo area when just about every major health organization say that they are an important part of a diet? If you don't like them, can get the same nutrition from other sources, and feel that they are hard on your blood sugars then that is up to you. But it seems like every time I suggest that others try them for themselves to see if they can include them in their diet, you go batshit. Very puzzling. Kurt >What I've asked you many times is why you seem to put whole grains in >the taboo area when just about every major health organization say >that they are an important part of a diet? Read Wendy's answer. Says it all. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/ http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/ latest: Epidaurus > What I've asked you many times is why you seem to put whole grains in > the taboo area when just about every major health organization say > that they are an important part of a diet? They are not important, as I have pointed out you can get the same and more from different but lower carb foods. Let's not confuse bodily needs with personal preference. Bottom line, grains are not necessary if substitutes are made (very important). If you don't like them, > can get the same nutrition from other sources, and feel that they are > hard on your blood sugars then that is up to you. But it seems like > every time I suggest that others try them for themselves to see if > they can include them in their diet, you go batshit. I go batshit as you say because 1. you persist in saying grains are necessary and 2. you often say they (and other starches) are bg friendly. If 50 type 2's tell you even small amounts of wholegrains and starches are NOT bg-friendly, why can't you accept that? You have the good fortune (if one with type 1 can have good fortune) of being able to inject to cover what you eat carb-wise and not have to battle high insulin resistance. There is no big deal in dropping or lowering starches, unless a person is highly dependant mentally, on them. In general most type 2's have a major problem with grains and starches, you need to get over that. Nothing wrong with saying they are bg friendly for you personally. In alt.support.diabetes Kurt <kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote: >> . ?What they fail to >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> For you, and you forgot to add that you are a type 1 on >> insulin, shame. ? > Every one of us is different. I don't see you listing that you are a > Type 2 using D&E in every post you make. I know you love to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > because of the fiber that affects how it is broken down in the > digestion process. According to http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm, which is just the first good looking list of food GIs I came across, the different kinds of brown rice vary between a GI of about 40 to about 80, and so do the GIs of the various kinds of white rice. Even if you switched to a good kind of brown rice from a bad kind of white rice 40 is still a high GI for a diabetic who is trying to keep BGs down, and a lot higher than the GI of the other carb sources most of the lowish (or moderate) carb eaters here on asd use. GI is the measure of exactly how much a specific kind of food affects BG. a GI of 40 is far from being "easy on blood sugar" for a non-insulin using T2, it's not as bad as something of 60 0r 80. If you know of a kind of brown rice which really is easy on blood sugars (as measured by GI) then we'd all like to hear about it. Unless you're picky about which brown rice and white rice you choose to compare, they come out on average pretty close in the GI tables, and GI is the precise scientific measure of "easy on blood sugars". I suspect your story about how much the fibre in brown rice changes the way the carbohydrates are digested is some nonscience you picked up from a miseducated health food source. It should be reflected in the GI, yet the GI of brown rices is on average pretty close to white and they both have the same kind of variation. >> > As far as the scientific cites, I agree with you that they >> will go [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> in an effort >> > to impress others so their advice will be more revered. Some of us do it because we're actually interested. I know it's very hard for you to imagine that anyone in the whole world might actually be willing to suffer the frightful pain and effort of self-education, but some of us here on asd do actually enjoy learning, and among other things use asd as a kind of diabetic science tutorial group. I knew nothing at all about diabetes beyond a brief Reader's Digest summary before I was diagnosed. I didn't even know there was more than one type. That was two years ago, and I've learned a lot in those two years. The single most important source of information for me in those two years has been those posters on asd who read research studies and discuss them. I'm very grateful for their help, and by way of recompense to asd for that particular very important support for me in learning about diabetes, I try when I can to add my own bit to this valuable learning resource. >> What a load of crap. It is usually people talking about >> things that go over and beyond what some people care to know [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> people for wanting to know more and have the ability to >> understand more is sour grapes at best. I think the appropriate metaphor here is "dog in the manger" :-) >> Shame on you again. >> I am not sure you realise just how pathetic your above [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> are an >> > authority. You really can't tell the difference between an authority and someone who is learning by means of critical discussion, can you? After all, they both use long words :-) >> >?Anyone with a modicum of intelligence will >> realize that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> Wrong. It is very easy to know more about diabetes than your >> local GP, very easy. > Maybe your local GP, but not mine. Diabetes is not limited to what > you put on your plate or which kind of medication to take. It > involves an understanding of the entire human body. Knowledge isn't unidimensional Kurt. If you get 75% in an exam and I get 60% that doesn't mean that there's nothing I know about it that you don't know. As I've pointed out before, in several months of serious part time study anyone with biology at good secondary school or first year university standard and an aptitude for learning ought to be able to learn more than their doctor, in the opinion of their doctor, about some of the specific details and the latest research in any one particular specific disease. A very well known case which I'm sure you must have heard of is the case of lorenzo's oil. They made a film about it. If you haven't got any biological background it's not impossible, it just takes longer. Diabetes is a various enough disorder, and the people who suffer from it are various enough, to support a wide variety of interests and offer a wide variety of kinds of support to the diabetics who come here. Among the various subgroups there's a well established community here who among other things like to use asd as a discussion group about the biology and biochemistry of various aspects of diabetes. Your argument for trying to censor these people seems to be that in your opinion they're all frauds and liars who only post stuff with long scientific words in order to impress people who don't understand. Of course some are doing that, just as some of the folk here who discuss the spiritual side of life are lunatics, but that's life and newsgroups for you. Not everyone who posts about spiritual matters is a lunatic, and not everyone here who uses scientific terms is a fraud. By all means uncover frauds and warn us about them. That entails arguing with facts, citing sources, and naming names. If you can't be bothered, give up on the dog in the manger stuff. It makes you look like someone with an inferiority complex. SignatureChris 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/] In alt.support.diabetes Kurt <kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote: : > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:51:10 +1100, "Ozgirl" : > : > <are_we_there_...@maccas.com> wrote: : Alan, : There are three groups this thread is being posted to, so I'll just : speak for my experiences here in a.s.d. : The majority of posters in a.s.d. profess to eat "low carb" but I have : yet to hear a consensus of what low carb means so that's where a lot [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : nutrients and because of the fiber it contains is very easy on the : blood sugars. Some of these whole grain products have much more bang Kurt, You keep iterating and reiterating this mantra about the whole grain brown rice that doesn't cause YOU to spike. I can tell yu that for ME and, from what I gather from posts here, that it does spike many of us. wholesome as it is, a tablesponnful will not add much of its valued nutrients to my diet. that is the kidn of quantity I would have to eat to avoid the pp spike. For many of us, eating moderate carbs (60-100 a day) our bodies will not allow us to eat these whole grains in any quantity without grossly increasing our medications and taking on an exercise program many of us can't do. I can handle the whole grain rye Wasa and Ryevita crackers in small quantities, which I use in lieu of bread, but I HAVE TO find my nutrients in assorted low carb vegetables and some fruits because I could not nourish myself with enough whole grains to meet my needs. Type 1's on insulin and without insulin resistance can manage this very well by adjusting their dosages, but for many type 2s this is quite impossible to do. that is why we report our own findings as guides for others who are having problems, rahter than following the general advice about the wholesomeness of whle grains. I would love to be able to eat oatmeal fo rbreakfast, but am unable to do so now that i cannot take a brisk walk after breakfast. Wendy : In alt.support.diabetes Kurt <kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote: :: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:51:10 +1100, "Ozgirl" [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] : : Wendy I have to say Wendy, I've been following this thread but have kept quiet because I didn't want to get in the middle of the pissing match... but I find the need to comment on what you said. I think if ALL posts that were different in opinion were worded as you've worded this post, there would be far less pissing matches in here and more support posts could be found and given. I can tell you, for me a T1 who can change my insulin even more so then a T1 on MDI, that there are some days that I can't have rice either, white, brown, green or blue. :) Then there are some days that I can eat fried rice for all 3 of my meals and it doesn't make a dent in my glucose and I think .. whoohoo!!! I've figured this bastard out... then the next time I give it a go.. pfft! it's all shot to hell again. But then I've really beat it into my head that even T1's are ever changing because so many things are tossed into the variable pot. But I see absolutely no harm in Kurt stating that there are important nutrients that can be found in whole grains, because I was at the doctors today and she confirmed that there were. She stated that certain vitamins are quite high in whole grains and one would need to eat double of another food to get the same value. What they were.. she was going to explain and tell me but I was getting tired of sitting there since it was the last thing on my list of 8 issues I went over with her prior. All I know as proof for me is that my dear mother fed us kids very well growing up. We always had a meat of some sort, potatoe, sweet potatoes, or some type of rice, we always had two fresh veggies or a veggie and salad, we often had bread with dinner and gravy.. omg, hot roast beef sandwiches from left over roast beef the night before was to die for! No one in my family was ever overweight.. the only time I ever was, was when I was pregnant.. I went from 117lbs to 162lbs at delivery.. Danni was 6lbs, 7oz, 19in long and I immedately dropped 24lbs when she dropped.. took me 2 months after just by normal daily moving around and taking Danni for a walk around the block after dinner to get back to 121lbs.. Darn hips wouldn't get any smaller! LOL But.. mom always instilled exercise and made sure that I got just as much exercise as I did TV time. Snacks were always available as well.. I remember we'd be out playing then run in and grab something to eat and run back out.. might have been fruit, raw veggies or if we were lucky that day.. mom had just taken out a batch of cookies from the oven.. then we'd sit down and have 2-3 of them with a awesome ice cold tall glass of whole milk. Point I'm trying to make.. is that again, YMMV, we aren't all the same as you said even.. and what might work for me, might not for you.. but it certainly doesn't hurt to share our ideas and opinions.. without being attacked and start again bashing from the posters here to bashing the ADA again. How about we all just try to leave the bashing at the door? This place would be so much better. Reisa > : In alt.support.diabetes Kurt <kurtwheeling1...@hotmail.com> wrote: > :: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:51:10 +1100, "Ozgirl" [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > would > be so much better. Well said, Reisa. For the record, I am not trying to shove whole grains down anyone's throats. What I am tyring to show is that whole grains are and can be a part of a good diet. If one can't tolerate them based on their activity level, allergies, or other factors then don't eat them. But they do have a benefit in one's diet and people shouldn't dismiss them just because someone else in here says they are no good. Anyway, hope you are feeling well and the pain isn't as much of an issue as it was a while back. Kurt > But I see absolutely no harm in Kurt stating that there are important > nutrients > that can be found in whole grains, because I was at the doctors today > and she confirmed that there were. She stated that certain vitamins > are quite high in whole grains and one would need to eat double of > another food to get the same value. What they were.. she was going > to explain and tell me but I was getting tired of sitting there since > it was the last thing on my list > of 8 issues I went over with her prior. Actually, when you research any nutrients found in whole grain bread you will find that the sources are highest in non grain foods and that grain bread is actually down low on the lists. A lot of grain bread has to be eaten to obtain anywhere near the RDA of nutrients. There are some very reputable sources of information for food nutrients. The same sources that dieticians etc have access to. What your doctor said surprises me greatly. >> But I see absolutely no harm in Kurt stating that there >are important [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >same sources that dieticians etc have access to. What your >doctor said surprises me greatly. OK, you guys need to start posting the type and amount of those "nutrients" that are in brown rice, grains, and those other green, leafy sources of carbs. You've been saying the same things for a few rounds, now, and you aren't helping the rest of us with this constant back and forth. Me, I'd never do that kind of back and forth. (blush) Alan Moorman >But I see absolutely no harm in Kurt stating that there are important >nutrients [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >list >of 8 issues I went over with her prior. Here's the info, Reisa: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/SR15/wtrank/wt_rank.html Nicky. T2 DX 05/2004 A1c 5.5% BMI 25 D&E 100ug Thyroxine > You and Susan seem to assume that when you say lower carb > that you mean all you eat is leafy green veggies. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Alan Moorman Jan, I'm SOOOOOO disappointed in you! You have been posting regularly here about the logic behind your dietary choices for about 8 years, but apparently you have been doing it when Alan, our newly self-appointed editor and self-proclaimed Smart Guy, wasn't paying attention. Since Alan has been whinging about BIG words, I guess it must have been difficult for you to know that you have been using too many LITTLE words, too. Perhaps Alan will provide guidance to us all about the optimal wordlength in our posts. And it would probably be a good idea to ask his schedule for reading the NG, so we can be sure to toe the line that day. Until then, please consider yourself to be on Super Secret Double Probation (SSDP) here. You may also expect continued scrutiny, whining, and whinging from Alan in the meantime, at least until you comply, and you too are able to qualify for Smart Guy Status (SGS). Since it's obvious that Alan has discovered his thumb, perhaps we can just hope he finds his toes, too. That should keep him busy for another ten years. Jim >Since it's obvious that Alan has discovered his thumb, perhaps we can >just hope he finds his toes, too. That should keep him busy for another >ten years. > >Jim Hi Jim A minor favour to ask for clarity on this confusing group. Please include surnames in cases of common first names...TIA Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/ http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/ latest: Epidaurus >> Since it's obvious that Alan has discovered his thumb, perhaps we can >> just hope he finds his toes, too. That should keep him busy for another [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Please include surnames in cases of common first names...TIA > Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. Alan, My most heartfelt apologies for contributing to the confusion. Please allow me to clarify for the group: "I have personally met Alan S, T2, Australia, and *that* Alan possesses opposable thumbs. Further, deponent sayeth not." Jim >>> Since it's obvious that Alan has discovered his thumb, perhaps we >>> can just hope he finds his toes, too. That should keep him busy for >>> another ten years. >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Jim lol >>> Since it's obvious that Alan has discovered his thumb, perhaps we can >>> just hope he finds his toes, too. That should keep him busy for another [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Jim Ta Jim :-)) Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/ http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/ latest: Epidaurus >>Since it's obvious that Alan has discovered his thumb, perhaps we can >>just hope he finds his toes, too. That should keep him busy for another [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg >Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. Right you are! If I was Alan S. I certainly wouldn't want to be confused with Alan Moorman! :-) Alan Moorman > > You and Susan seem to assume that when you say lower carb > > that you mean all you eat is leafy green veggies. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > just hope he finds his toes, too. That should keep him busy for another > ten years. You see, Alan, this is the kind of treatment you get in here when you disagree with the know-it-alls. They just don't want to hear someone's opinion if it isn't theirs. The usual m.o. is to insult the person who disagrees and then if you insult back, you will be labeled a troublemaker or a troll. It's happened to a number of people in here...some have left, a few stay behind and hold their ground. I'm betting that after the above insult there will be someone along soon who will either roll on the floor laughing or maybe even they'll spew their coffee on their computer screen at the joke on you. Best thing to do is to not let it bother you. As much as they proclaim to know about diabetes and all things science, their sense of humor is pretty dull and their jokes are usually about as lame as the opposable thumb slam. Kurt > You see, Alan, this is the kind of treatment you get in here when you > disagree with the know-it-alls. And this is the way Kurt trolls for a 4th Stooge. Jim > > You see, Alan, this is the kind of treatment you get in here when you > > disagree with the know-it-alls. > > And this is the way Kurt trolls for a 4th Stooge. And this is how Jim justifies his trolling "opposable thumbs" insult by deflecting the attention to me. Nice job, Jim. Thanks for weighing in. It really helped the thread. Kurt >>> You see, Alan, this is the kind of treatment you get in here when you >>> disagree with the know-it-alls. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Kurt I've never felt the slightest need to justify my response to Alan S. If you didn't appreciate the multi-level humor, that says volumes. So, rather than exploring how you can be disarmed but not thumbless, I'd still like to hear you tell us all why whole grains are nutritionally superior to green, leafy vegetables for diabetics. You've ducked an answer at every turn. Dazzle us with your brilliance, but responding with "GIYF" is just transparently disingenuous. References to sites other than diabetes.org is worth extra points! Jim > >>> You see, Alan, this is the kind of treatment you get in here when you > >>> disagree with the know-it-alls. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I've never felt the slightest need to justify my response to Alan S. Of course not. That's a given. >If > you didn't appreciate the multi-level humor, that says volumes. The only part of your post that was funny was you labeling it "multi- level humor"...hilarious! > So, rather than exploring how you can be disarmed but not thumbless, Whoa, a play on words. Nice! >I'd > still like to hear you tell us all why whole grains are nutritionally > superior to green, leafy vegetables for diabetics. I never said that whole grains are superior to green, leafy vegetables for diabetics. I said that they have more bang for the buck nutrition wise than a lot of foods that some in here eat. Leafy green vegetables are a part of my daily diet, too, I just don't feel that someone has to eat only those. >You've ducked an > answer at every turn. Only in your mind, Jim. > Dazzle us with your brilliance, but responding with "GIYF" is just > transparently disingenuous. I've listed sites before that discuss the benfits of whole grains and they are so easily found because there are just so many of them. Google "benefits of whole grains" and see how many sites pop up. But here is an assignment for you. Please dazzle me with your brilliance by showing me the sites (not the blogs) stating that whole grains should be eliminated from one's diet. >References to sites other than diabetes.org > is worth extra points! I always find it funny when you rail against the ADA. When you do, I can almost hear the musical strains of "One Tin Soldier" playing in the background. Kurt >> >>> You see, Alan, this is the kind of treatment you get in here >> >>> when you disagree with the know-it-alls. >> >> And this is the way Kurt trolls for a 4th Stooge. >> >> > And this is how Jim justifies his trolling "opposable thumbs" >> > insult by deflecting the attention to me. Nice job, Jim. Thanks for >> > weighing in. It really helped the thread. >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > vegetables are a part of my daily diet, too, I just don't feel that > someone has to eat only those. I am not aware of anyone who does eat just leafy greens. Vegetable talk happens regularly in these groups and people do discuss other vegetables besides leafy greens. You are becoming fixated on leafy greens, are you sprouting? > I've listed sites before that discuss the benfits of whole grains and > they are so easily found because there are just so many of them. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Kurt I can see that you have lost the plot again, maybe permanently this time. It is only in your fantasies that anyone has said to eliminate whole grains from their diet. I don't believe anyone here either does or has ever recommended that. Another disingenuous smokescreen, and no citations. If nothing else, you are predictable. Pavlovian even. It's funny that ever since you launched your Quixotic Quest to defend the ADA against the evil Carb Conspiracy here, whenever I see you post I hear strains of Man of La Mancha. But you have taken it a step further than I. You went out and found Sancho Panza and Dulcinea. Well done! Your buddy, Jim > > I've listed sites before that discuss the benfits of whole grains and > > they are so easily found because there are just so many of them. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > time. It is only in your fantasies that anyone has said to eliminate > whole grains from their diet. That certainly isn't my fantasy, but it prettymuch is happening in reality. I think if you took a poll of 100 people who were bored enough to read this thread the overwhelming message (from your side) would be that someone with diabetes should not eat whole grains and instead eat leafy green vegetables. >I don't believe anyone here either does or > has ever recommended that. Another disingenuous smokescreen, and no > citations. If nothing else, you are predictable. Pavlovian even. I only salivate when the dinner bell rings and brown rice, azuki beans, and millet are beign served. Here's a link that will get you started, but you could have done this yourself... http://tinyurl.com/32vfab > It's funny that ever since you launched your Quixotic Quest to defend > the ADA against the evil Carb Conspiracy here, whenever I see you post I > hear strains of Man of La Mancha. But you have taken it a step |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message