 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / March 2008Low carb - High Protein
As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. It is sometimes quite frustrating when I can see no clear relationships between the calories, fat, protein or carbs and my BG readings. I found that what people have been saying here about carbs is right, even the carbs in a bowl of bran pushed my BG up to 9 mmol/L an hour after eating (even though it dropped back significantly at two hours post meal). I have moved to lower carbs (<100 g a day) and compensated with protein for satiety. But I have found that while this keeps my reading one hour after eating below 7.8 mmol/L the two hour reading is often still over 6.0 mmol/L and often is higher than the one hour value. Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? Is there something I'm missing?  SignaturePhil T2, Australia Diag: January 2007 D&E, Last HbA1c 5.7% >I have moved to lower carbs (<100 g a day) and compensated with protein for >satiety. But I have found that while this keeps my reading one hour after [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? Is >there something I'm missing? You might be converting protein to carb quite efficiently - it's supposed to be around a 50% conversion, but it seems to be far more significant for some people than others. Have you tried a low carb / medium protein / medium healthy fat diet? Nicky. T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid D&E, 100ug thyroxine Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25 > As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to > work on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? Is > there something I'm missing? My two hour is always higher but I have gastroparesis. I don't do low carb but lower as in lower than what I used to eat. Makes it hard for me though because I don't want to do higher protein nor do I want to do higher fat. So I am just eating less food in general. >As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work >on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. It [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? Is >there something I'm missing? Hi Phil There could be several reasons, not the least simply being time. For some people things work quickly, for some of us not as quick. It took me a while to get good 1hr numbers, and I also had a period where I either had higher two-hour or, more often, reactive lows at two or three hours. But I kept at it, aiming to get the peaks lower whenever they occurred. Over time I stabilised and my own peak is mainly one hour now and two hours is a non-event. With some exceptions. If I eat a high-carb high-fat meal then that can still cause me to peak later and longer. The pizza effect - but it doesn't happen to me every time. Unprecictable. So I don't do that very often. Also, I started to creep up after about three years and I chose to add metformin to my d&e. That changed the post-prandials quite significantly in the evening and led to quite a few changes in my menu. I suppose the point of all that waffle is that you have to keep doing that extra testing until things become predictable but even then it can sneak up on you at times. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest: The Quality of ADA Dietary Advice I replace the high spike carbs with fiber such as veggies and fruits that dont raise my bg. My protien intake is enought to keep me satisfied and recover from my workouts. I find it less desirable to follow a plan as it is to eat healthy , good ,tasty foods that keep me stable and keeps me withing a good calorie/nutrition range. If i had to pick a diet from say a book i would choose southbeach fr the good fats..lots of fresh veggies etc.. KROM > As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to > work on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? Is > there something I'm missing? Hi Phil, I suspect what you are seeing is different food raises your glucose at different speeds. If you eat 30g of high GI carbs, your levels will spike and the insulin action you have will try and bring it down. So you will probably have a high 1hr and lower 2hr. if you eat the same 30g of low GI carbs, your levels will not spike as quick, your insulin will not spike and your levels will be on less of a roller coaster. Chances may very well be 2hr will be higher than 1 hour. My understanding is there are 2 phases of insulin action, and in us T2s, the first phase becomes defective first. Therefore often a spike will precipitate phase 2 and bring our levels down. If we overspike, then there are other problems. high GI will precipitate the phase 2 Do you consider 6 after 2 hours that bad ? What are you after 3 hours. I'm guessing you know all this already, but figured I'd give it a shot > As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work > on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. It [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Diag: January 2007 > D&E, Last HbA1c 5.7% > As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work > on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. It [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? Is > there something I'm missing? It is likely that you are not eating less, down to the right amount: http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be euglycemic... be blessed: http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthy Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com Swordbearer for the KING of kings and LORD of lords. http://HeartMDPhD.com/Sword > As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work > on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. It [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? Is > there something I'm missing? Phil, low carb diets aren't high protein, they're higher fat and fiber. Protein converts to glucose, too, slowly, at a rate of about 58%. Instead of replacing the carbs you reduce with protein, try eating just the amount of protein you need and adding fats from healthy sources, and heaping on the colorful, high fiber, non starchy vegetables instead. One tool that's helped me, over 10 years, to figure out what macronutrient breakdown gives me the best results is the free software at fitday.com. Susan >> Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets >> find? Is there something I'm missing? > > Phil, low carb diets aren't high protein, they're higher fat and fiber. A "low carb diet" could be either. Or both. Or neither. But Phil was more specific, with "lower carb - higher protein". Though perhaps there is something he's missing, i.e., the existence of these alternatives. Phil, if you've been listening to warnings about the dangers of fat, most of them are B.S. Some fats are good, some are bad, some are only bad in large amounts. SignatureWes Groleau "Would the prodigal have gone home if the elder brother was running the farm?" -- James Jordan > A "low carb diet" could be either. Or both. > Or neither. But Phil was more specific, with > "lower carb - higher protein". I suppose it could be, but by design, none of the low carb diet plans are high protein, which is what Phil used in his subject header, you'll note. Susan >x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >are high protein, which is what Phil used in his subject header, you'll >note. Well, Protein Power is, relatively. Nicky. T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid D&E, 100ug thyroxine Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25 > Well, Protein Power is, relatively. Not really; they just have you calculate the amount of protein that your lean body mass and activity level requires for adequate maintenance. And they say their maintenance ideal is 40 30 30. Susan Susan Wrote: > Phil, low carb diets aren't high protein, they're higher fat and fiber. Reply: Some low-carb dies are high protein and some aren't. In fact, the highly sucessfull (as regards BG and A1cs) low carb LoBAG approach IS a high protein diet (30% of calories from protein) See http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/53/9/2375. What I find worrisome about this approach is the resulting increased IGF-1 and possible relationship with increased cancer risk. See: http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/4/E786 Regards Randy > Susan Wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > approach IS a high protein diet (30% of calories from protein) > See http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/53/9/2375. I don't regard 30% as protein to be high, just adequate. > What I find worrisome about this approach is the resulting increased > IGF-1 and possible relationship with increased cancer risk. There is no proven or known risk from healthy vs. pathological causes of elevated IGF1. Susan Susan Wrote: > I don't regard 30% as protein to be high, just adequate. You may not regard this as a high protein diet but the majority of the professional world does. Even the authors of the LoBag study refer to it as a HIGH Protein diet. See:http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/53/9/2375 Phil's question should be addressed in the context it was presented and I'm sure by "high protein" he did not intend "your" definition but how its used professionally (published studies, poll of professionalls). Susan Wrote: > There is no proven or known risk from healthy vs. pathological causes of > elevated IGF1. Reply: Are you refering to your private definitions here or professional usage? The diet inquestion increased IGF-1 by 34% with a P <.006 so the increase was caused by the diet. If anyone would like to read more about IGF-1 and cancer to see if there is any reason for concern here are some links: http://www.cbcrp.org/research/PageGrant.asp?grant_id=1575 http://cancer.ucsf.edu/u56/pilotprojects.php http://www.mindfully.org/Health/IGF-I-Cancer-Development.htm http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/16/7923 http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=IGF+cancer Randy > Susan Wrote: > >>I don't regard 30% as protein to be high, just adequate. > > You may not regard this as a high protein diet but the majority of the > professional world does. So what? The majority of the professional world told women for 25 years that HRT prevented stroke, dementia and heart disease and that SIDS deaths were an inherited trait when it turned out they ran in families because of homicidal mothers. > Even the authors of the LoBag study refer to it as a HIGH Protein > diet. So what? I don't adopt opinions as fact. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > > ra...@val.com wrote: > > Susan Wrote: > > >>I don't regard 30% as protein to be high, just adequate. Randy Wrote: You may not regard this as a high protein diet but the majority of the professional world does. Susan Wrote: > So what? The majority of the professional world told women for 25 years > that HRT prevented stroke, dementia and heart disease and that SIDS > deaths were an inherited trait when it turned out they ran in families > because of homicidal mothers. Reply: Susan - Do you know the difference between an empirical statement (something that can be verified by evidence,ie HRT prevented stroke, dementia and heart disease ) and a definition (28 grams in a once, 12 inches in a foot, High Protein diet >=30%). It appears you don't. A definition in this context refers an agreed equivalency established either offically (NIST,ISO) or unofficially through common argreed usage. High protein diets >=30% of calories are commonly accepted by the scientific community. I already provided one link to this effect. This in not a matter of experiment verification and does not depend on experiemental evidence. Its just a definition that agreed upon. It impossible to have reasonable conversions without these kinds of definitions. Phil question regarded High Protein Diets, it makes absolutely no sense why we should use your differing defintion as opposed to the usage in the scientific community. Regards Randy > > Even the authors of the LoBag study refer to it as a HIGH Protein > > diet. > > So what? I don't adopt opinions as fact. > > Susan >The diet inquestion increased IGF-1 by 34% with a P <.006 so the >increase was caused by the diet. >If anyone would like to read more about IGF-1 and cancer to see if >there is any reason for concern here are some links: The growth factor is a biomarker ; the real question is : "does the protein in the diet raise your risk on cancer ?" If red meat... maybe , if from fish or plant or dairy NO .It will lower your cancer risk.Protein and especial some amino acids will improve on your diabetes.Arginine is the starting material for NO lowering your CVD risk.Protein generates a very high CCK satiety signal , good for eating less , good for loosing belly fat.The real risk is animal fat and processed red meat.Here is just one example. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/17/1330 Milk Intake, Circulating Levels of Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I, and Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Men Conclusion: Intake of dairy products was associated with a modest increase in circulating IGF-I levels, but intake of low-fat milk was associated with lower risk of colorectal cancer, particularly among individuals with high IGF-I/IGFBP-3. This subpopulation, which is at increased risk of colorectal cancer, might benefit the most from specific dietary intervention. Gys > <ra...@val.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Gys Hi Gys, This is an interesting paper but only minimally relavent to the LoBAG data. 1. This study showed that 3 serving of low fat milk reduced the incidence to CC (colon Cancer) in subjects with high IGF-I/IGFBP-3 (IGFBP-3 binds and thereby inactivates its effects. The point being that low fat milk products have a protective effect on high IGF-I/IGFBP-3, not the high IGF-I/IGFBP-3 are not harmfull. In fact these same authors have published papers demonstrating increased CC with higher IGF-I/IGFBP-3. The fact the milk can reduce the effects of high IGF-I/IGFBP-3 doesn't negate bad stuff thats associated with high IGF-I/IGFBP-3 in wider contexts. Smokers that eat alot of vegatables fair better than those that don't, but thats not a not quilty verdict on smoking. Many studies have shown a negative association between low fat dairy products and CC and many studies have show a Positive association between dairy products and prostate cancer. Additionally both cancers are positively associated the high IGF-I/IGFBP-3(CC is associated with high IGF-I/IGFBP-3 when dairy products are not consumed. Also breast cancer which is associated with high IGF-I has been discussed at all. Here's what the authors say: "In summary, this prospective study suggests a protective effect of dietary calcium on colorectal cancer incidence among men with a high IGF-I/IGFBP-3, despite the moderate positive influence of milk or dairy food intake on circulating IGF-I levels. The hypothesis that the effect of calcium to reduce colorectal cancer risk varies according to IGF-I levels should be examined further in studies with more detailed dietary assessment and in dietary intervention trials." I agree, low fat dairy is recommended to reduce CC if you don't mind the increased incidence of prostate cancer (and this is dabatable) 2. The scale of IFG-1 in these two studies are not comparable. The LoBAG (30% protein) diet increased IGF-I by 35% where as the milk study only increased IGF-1 by ~13%. BTW, I don't know how much red meat is included in the LoBAG diet, but total sat fat was <10% of all calories. So they either used very lean beef or lots of chicken and fish. Regards Randy On Mar 1, 6:41 pm, "GysdeJongh" <jongh...@planet.nl> wrote: > <ra...@val.com> wrote in message > > news:c332dc07-db4f-4412-89a6-56f88d0c2081@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > (IGFBP-3 binds and thereby inactivates its effects. Hi randy, binding proteins are for transport , not for inactivation. IGFBP3 is not an inactivator of IGF : IGFBP3 insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 [ Homo sapiens ] GeneID: 3486 Also known as IBP3; BP-53 Summary This gene is a member of the insulin-like growth factor binding protein (IGFBP) family and encodes a protein with an IGFBP domain and a thyroglobulin type-I domain. The protein forms a ternary complex with insulin-like growth factor acid-labile subunit (IGFALS) and either insulin-like growth factor (IGF) I or II. In this form, it circulates in the plasma, prolonging the half-life of IGFs and altering their interaction with cell surface receptors. Alternate transcriptional splice variants, encoding different isoforms, have been characterized. hth Gys > <ra...@val.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > binding proteins are for transport , not for inactivation. > IGFBP3 is not an inactivator of IGF : Hi Gys Operationally, in this study (and others) the Higher the value of IGFBP3 the Lower the rates of cancer for a given value of IGF-I. That's what I meant by inactivation. Higher values of IGFBP3 reduce the bad effects of IGF-I. Regards Randy > IGFBP3 insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 [ Homo sapiens ] GeneID: > 3486 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > hth > Gys On Mar 3, 5:20 pm, "GysdeJongh" <jongh...@planet.nl> wrote: > <ra...@val.com> wrote in message > > news:d123ea01-a9fb-4682-a964-6e96d3e41967@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > Operationally, in this study (and others) > the Higher the value of IGFBP3 the > Lower the rates of cancer for a given > value of IGF-I. That's what I meant by > inactivation. Higher values of IGFBP3 > reduce the bad effects of IGF-I. Hi randy, the binding protein is there for transport , not for inactivation.In serum IGF's , like a lot of other biomolecules, are bound to their own binding protein.This is a general principle.This is the solution designed by evolution for transporting large molecules through a water phase and delivering them to the cells in the tissues that need them.It makes the determination of IGF in serum a bit more technical challenging and the results a lot more difficult to interpret.My impressuion is that the authors of the article are just as confused by this results as you are.See the large discussion in the article. Like I said the IGF is just a biomarker , a surogate marker.It has all the disadvantages of a surrogate marker.One important disadvantage : it may not stand for what you are after......:( So here is an example of an elevated surrogate marker .It predicts a higher cancer rate.They found a _LOWER_ cancer rate. You originally said that the Lobag diet caused an increase in IGF and thus you were worried about an increased cancer rate. 1) The surrogate marker is not always right 2) I posted a reference where it is wrong 3) I do not see why you like this marker so much ??? Are you worried that a too high protein diet causes cancer ? Are you worried that the Lobag diet causes cancer ? Personally I'm not intersted in cancer.It did not cross my path ; luckily.So I don't know the literature very well.My personal guess is that the relative risk for cancer ( and T2D ) can be lowered by calorie restriction.If you have literature relating a "Lobag-type" diet , not to a surrogate marker , but directly to colon cancer then I would of course be interested. In the meantime I just posted : "Obesity And Carbs Linked To Esophageal Cancer, Study Suggests" Which would be in favour of the Lobag diet Thanks for the discussion Glad to see you back btw :) Gys Hi Gys, Gys wrote: > the binding protein is there for transport , not for inactivation.In serum > IGF's , like a lot of other biomolecules, are bound to their own binding [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of the article are just as confused by this results as you are.See the large > discussion in the article. Reply: My view differs,Gys The literature is pretty consistent that high IGF-I and LOW IGFBP-3 is the pattern associated with cancer. In fact in the paper under discussion they used the IGF-1/IGFBP-3 ratio as positively associated with increased cancer risk. Please refer: http://www.mindfully.org/Health/IGF-I-Cancer-Development.htm Gys Wrote: Like I said the IGF is just a biomarker , a surogate marker.It has all the disadvantages of a surrogate marker.One important disadvantage : it may not stand for what you are after......:( Reply: I strongly disagree Gys. There is strong, plentifull evidence that IGF- I has a strong causually role through direct biochemical pathways. It's not just an innocent bystanding pointing a finger. Here's a quote from the above reference: // ****************************************************************************************** Laboratory studies have shown that IGFs exert strong mitogenic and antiapoptotic actions on various cancer cells. IGFs also act synergistically with other mitogenic growth factors and steroids and antagonize the effect of antiproliferative molecules on cancer growth. The role of IGFs in cancer is supported by epidemiologic studies, which have found that high levels of circulating IGF-I and low levels of IGFBP-3 are associated with increased risk of several common cancers, including those of the prostate, breast, colorectum, and lung. Evidence further suggests that certain lifestyles, such as one involving a high-energy diet, may increase IGF-I levels, a finding that is supported by animal experiments indicating that IGFs may abolish the inhibitory effect of energy restriction on cancer growth. Further investigation of the role of IGFs in linking high energy intake, increased cell proliferation, suppression of apoptosis, and increased cancer risk may provide new insights into the etiology of cancer and lead to new strategies for cancer prevention. // ***************************************************************************************** The original paper you brought up showed that low fat dairy can decrease the colon cancer risk of HIGH IGF-I/IGFBP-3 (ratio) to lower levels levels of risk. The point being the protective effect of low fat dairy,not that IGF-I does not have a mechanistic role in cancer. As an analogy consider the following: 1. The Japanese smoke more than Americans. (this true) 2. Japanese have less lung cancer than Americans (this is true) 3. Therefore smoking can't have a mechanistic role in cancer. (this is not true) Please let me know if I'm missing something as I value your judgement. Randy > The growth factor is a biomarker ; the real question is : "does the protein > in the diet raise your risk on cancer ?" If red meat... maybe , if from fish > or plant or dairy NO . There's no evidence to support that statement, Gys. Only cured meats have a positive association, which is not by itself anything close to proof of causation. No studies have ever separated out garbage meats from wholesome red meats. It will lower your cancer risk.Protein and especial > some amino acids will improve on your diabetes.Arginine is the starting > material for NO lowering your CVD risk.Protein generates a very high CCK > satiety signal , good for eating less , good for loosing belly fat.The real > risk is animal fat and processed red meat.Here is just one example. Red meat is absolutely not a risk, nor is animal fat. Feedlot meat yes, red meat, no. Susan >> GysdeJongh wrote: >> "does the protein in the diet raise your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > causation. No studies have ever separated out garbage meats from wholesome > red meats. Hi Susan, I don't know the literature on cancer very well ; it did not cross my path.After Dx I checked a lot of things people were posting in asd ; for about 99 % of the more serious suggestions I found scientific prove.So I checked the effect on myself , became my own experiment and found that for me it worked. Main lines for me : calorie restriction , exercise , more fibre , good fats , lean meat.When I look back then I think that : 1) red meat , 2) saturated animal fat , 3) sugar and artificial sweeteners , 4) all processed foods (chips , pizza , cookies) were all more or less deleted by default.There was nolonger a place in my diet.Red meat has more calories than turkey , salmon has more omega-3 fat than red meat etc. I still use them as a treat now and then. If your interpretation of the available evidence is that all effects are caused by the way we handle our livestock and thus that wholesome red is a good source of protein and other nutrients for you then I respect your choise of course. My stance is that for me it has no special advantage ; some reports start me worrying : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17101944?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEn trez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/166/20/2253 Red meat intake and risk of breast cancer among premenopausal women. BACKGROUND: The association between red meat intake and breast cancer is unclear ..... CONCLUSION: Higher red meat intake may be a risk factor for ER+/PR+ breast cancer among premenopausal women. PMID: 17101944 hth Gys > Hi Susan, > I don't know the literature on cancer very well ; it did not cross my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > has more omega-3 fat than red meat etc. I still use them as a treat now and > then. Red meat does not all have more calories than turkey, and while salmon is high in omega 3s, grass fed red meat has a very healthy balance of omega 3s and 6s, along with high CLA. Lean red meat is lower calorie than dark turkey or poultry with hte skin, and preparation counts. Sirloin steak has more mono and poly fat, too, than sat fat. > If your interpretation of the available evidence is that all effects are > caused by the way we handle our livestock and thus that wholesome red is a > good source of protein and other nutrients for you then I respect your > choise of course. It's not my choice, it's what good science demonstrates, and I'm glad because it widens my menu. > My stance is that for me it has no special advantage ; some reports start me > worrying : [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > PMID: 17101944 Gys, red meat is often a marker for french fries and coke, and no accounting is made for grass fed vs feedlot beef, which I don't buy. Grass feeding accounts for the French and Swiss paradoxes. Susan >>There was >> nolonger a place in my diet.Red meat has more calories than turkey , [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > turkey or poultry with hte skin, and preparation counts. Sirloin steak has > more mono and poly fat, too, than sat fat. I never use skin and only the lean meat. Here they are : http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ Beef, brisket, point half, separable lean only, trimmed to 1/4" fat, all grades, raw : Energy kcal 162 Fatty acids, total polyunsaturated g 0.230 Fish, salmon, Atlantic, wild, raw Energy kcal 142 Fatty acids, total polyunsaturated g 2.539 Turkey, all classes, light meat, raw Energy kcal 115 > Gys, red meat is often a marker for french fries and coke, and no > accounting is made for grass fed vs feedlot beef, which I don't buy. > Grass feeding accounts for the French and Swiss paradoxes. Gys GysdeJongh said... >>>There was >>> nolonger a place in my diet.Red meat has more calories than turkey , [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Gys Take into account that you're probably not going to eat red meat at every meal no more than you'd eat turkey at every meal. Compare your saturated fat vs. protein caloric intake average over a week. That a better indicator than just comparing 100g of raw meats in general. Is that roast turkey going to have gravy on it, or that grilled steak covered in A1 sauce, or that Atlantic salmon cooked in butter? Comparing polyunsaturated fat in the above example paints a very misleading picture. If you want to talk unhealthy, use saturated fat numbers. Andy SignatureT2 HBP Gout :) > GysdeJongh said... > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Comparing polyunsaturated fat in the above example paints a very misleading > picture. If you want to talk unhealthy, use saturated fat numbers. Exactly. And brisket was a poor choice for comparision, compared to well trimmed sirloin, beef flank, top round or filet. Also, those numbers are from feedlot beef. Who trims to 1/4" fat?? I trim to zero white fat around the perimeter. Susan : x-no-archive: yes : > GysdeJongh said... : > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] : > Comparing polyunsaturated fat in the above example paints a very misleading : > picture. If you want to talk unhealthy, use saturated fat numbers. : Exactly. : And brisket was a poor choice for comparision, compared to well trimmed : sirloin, beef flank, top round or filet. Also, those numbers are from : feedlot beef. : Who trims to 1/4" fat?? I trim to zero white fat around the perimeter. : Susan We eat lots of shoulder steak around here. You can't find much leaner than that. Very little marbling and the butchers now remove just about all of the fat that surrounds the lean section. It looks a great deal like the round cuts that we don't eat. Not much is leaner than that! I would imagine that it is better than dark poultry. Brisket is strictl a holiday meat for us when I make my mother's (and Granmother's) caramelized pot roast. Now that is a great one! Wendy W. Baker said... > We eat lots of shoulder steak around here. You can't find much leaner > than that. Maybe in your neighborhood/country! Andy SignatureT2 HBP Gout :) > >>There was > >> nolonger a place in my diet.Red meat has more calories than turkey , [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Gys I stopped eating red meat years ago. Here's some food for thought: http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/04-03-08-01.all.html Kurt Susan Wrote: > I don't regard 30% as protein to be high, just adequate. You may not regard this as a high protein diet but the majority of the professional world does. -------------------------- What exactly is it about protein that has your panties in a wad Randy? My calories are lower than a lot of other people so my protein levels would be lower also, especially as I also eat very little grain and other foods where protein is food as well as the usual meat, fish etc sources. Even if higher protein was dangerous what does the percentage matter? My 30% or whatever my percentage may be is within the recommended daily amount for protein. Where is your 30%? And please do count the protein you get in your diet from non meats too please. >Susan Wrote: >> Phil, low carb diets aren't high protein, they're higher fat and fiber. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Regards >Randy I did a quick search on both references, both of which I've read before. I could find no mention of risk of cancer or carcinogens. Clarify please. There is a note on the increase on IGF-I, (not IGF-1) but the relationship between that and cancer is still tenuous at best. As a dumb non-biochemist looking in it strikes me that the relationship is about as clear as that for ingested cholesterol and heart disease. Clear as mud. Here is one of the more recent studies on that: http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/reprint/151/Suppl_1/S17?ck=nck "Evidence for a link between IGF-I and cancer" Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest: The Quality of ADA Dietary Advice Alan Wrote: > I did a quick search on both references, both of which I've > read before. I could find no mention of risk of cancer or > carcinogens. Clarify please. Reply: Alan It was quite clear in my post that I was refering to the increased level of IGF-1(sorry it supposed to be Romain I) as a concern. If you refer to the full paper(its available from the abstract) on page 789 table 1 you can see there is a 34% average increase in IGG-I. Alan Wrote: > There is a note on the increase on IGF-I, (not IGF-1) but > the relationship between that and cancer is still tenuous at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Here is one of the more recent studies on that:http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/reprint/151/Suppl_1/S17?ck=nck > "Evidence for a link between IGF-I and cancer" Reply: Well Alan I wasn't going to call you dumb, but since you've already admitted as much I must agree in this particular instance. ( I acutally think your a smart, but biased guy) The study you referenced totally supported my view. In fact the authors state at the end of the paper: ****************************************************************************************** "This review has discussed the considerable evidence in support of an important role for the GH/IGF-I axis in the development and growth of many cancers." ****************************************************************************************** A complete understanding of the low level mechanisms might be lacking and very complicated, but that has nothing to do with the considerable evidence pointing to a connection. One doesn't have to know how cirgaratte smoking causes cancer before he avoids smoking. Once again I invite anyone that's interested in looking a quality studies on this issue to check out these links: http://cancer.ucsf.edu/u56/pilotprojects.php http://www.mindfully.org/Health/IGF-I-Cancer-Development.htm http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/16/7923 http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=IGF+cancer I'm not saying that the association of increased IGF-I is absolute but there is enough data that makes this topic worthy of a conversation Regards Randy >Alan Wrote: >> I did a quick search on both references, both of which I've [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >Regards >Randy o 1 Increased protein consumption -> increased IGF-I; possibly. Worthy of conversation; yes. An important role; probably. What that role is; unknown. Beneficial or harmful; unknown. o 2 Excessive carbohydrate consumption in diabetics -> high blood glucose levels unless medications added; proven. High blood glucose levels -> complications; proven. Excessive medication to counter high BG's -> complications; THAT, in my opinion, is what ACCORD is proving. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest: The Quality of ADA Dietary Advice > On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:09:38 -0800 (PST), "ra...@val.com" > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > o 1 Alan Wrote: > o 2 > Excessive carbohydrate consumption in diabetics -> high [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Excessive medication to counter high BG's -> complications; > THAT, in my opinion, is what ACCORD is proving. Reply: Alan, Did you forget to take your ADHD meds. We were discussing IGF-1 and high protein diets. I read your analsys for the ACCORD study and agreed. In fact I was going to complement you on a well done job. It would be great if you could mantain the degree of objectivity that you all too rarelly demonstrate. Regards Randy >> >I'm not saying that the association of increased IGF-I is absolute but >> >there is enough data that makes this topic worthy of a conversation [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Did you forget to take your ADHD meds. We were discussing IGF-1 and >high protein diets. So we were. Now re-read #1 up there again. I'll ignore the puerile personal barbs. Since you accidentally snipped it, I've copied it below to help you: o 1 Increased protein consumption -> increased IGF-I; possibly. Worthy of conversation; yes. An important role; probably. What that role is; unknown. Beneficial or harmful; unknown. Now, tell me. If you leave protein levels low enough to satisfy your worries about IGF-I, and you keep fats low because the USDA have convinced the world they are evil, which macronutrient remains? Now read point 2 again in that context. So, which macronutrient do you think is least dangerous to proportionally raise in a type 2 diabetes dietary plan? >I read your analsys for the ACCORD study and agreed. In fact I was >going to complement you on a well done job. It would be great if you >could mantain the degree of objectivity that you all too rarelly >demonstrate. Whoosh. Translation please. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest: The Quality of ADA Dietary Advice > Now, tell me. If you leave protein levels low enough to > satisfy your worries about IGF-I, and you keep fats low > because the USDA have convinced the world they are evil, > which macronutrient remains? Ummm. You could always increase whiskey. It has a fair number of calories, and it doesn't drive up your blood sugar. :-) Adam Becker Sr We'll raises up our glasses Against evil forces Singing, "Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!" - Tobey Keith, http://tinyurl.com/yvpoca Q: What's more useless than arguing on USENET with trolls, head- cases, spammers and flamers? A: Trying to convince other posters not to answer the trolls, head- cases, spammers and flamers. > On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 19:29:04 -0800 (PST), "ra...@val.com" > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Beneficial or harmful; unknown. Alan Wrote: > Now, tell me. If you leave protein levels low enough to > satisfy your worries about IGF-I, and you keep fats low [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So, which macronutrient do you think is least dangerous to > proportionally raise in a type 2 diabetes dietary plan? Reply: First of all I don't deny that the LoBAG diet is very effective at lowering BG and A1c and quenching the appetite, do doubt. My concerns about increased IGF and endothelium health (I'll start a new thread on this) give me pause though. I find it quite tiresome here that when anyone criticizes an aspect of Higher Protein Lower carb diets its immediately assumed thats equivalent to a recommendation to eat a HI GI, low fiber, low resistance starch diet. I don't eat or recommend jelly beans, white rice, or the mush ADA diet. When I'm eating alot of carbs its beans, barley, most fruits and South Beach HI fiber tortillas. High fiber diets (>50 grams with 1/2 soluable) diets do have support in the literature. As far as lower carb plans go I think Gerald Reavan's( one of the greatest living diabetes researchers) is the best thought out. It's interesting that he recommends a moderate protein intake not because of concerns of increased IGF, but because protein stimulates insulin secretion. Regards Randy randy@val.com said... > I don't eat or recommend jelly beans, white > rice, or the mush ADA diet. Proof again that we're all different. I eat but don't recommend what. Jelly beans sound like just the thing to recover from a hypo-glycemic event. Andy SignatureT2 HBP Gout :) "Always tell the truth. That way, you don't have to remember what you said." --Mark Twain I appreciate the information provided in response to my original question. All of it is informative (and all clearly passionate) and gives me a good insight on some of the issues. My original confusion came from seemingly contradictory advice on the proportions of the different food groups to include in a diet for control of BG and weight loss: Diabetes for Dummies (40% carb [120g], 30% protein [90g], 30% fat [40g]), my dietician (35% carb [115g], 45% protein [135g], 20% fat[23g]) and Dr Bernstein's Diabetes Solution which I am still trying to work out (30g carb?, 72g protein? and the rest ?). So I was wondering (as percentages) what other people experienced with T2 were targeting with their food? SignaturePhil T2, Australia Diag: January 2007 D&E, Last HbA1c 5.7% >I appreciate the information provided in response to my original question. >All of it is informative (and all clearly passionate) and gives me a good [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >So I was wondering (as percentages) what other people experienced with T2 >were targeting with their food? Can't really help because I rarely work it out. Occasionally I work out the daily total, somewhere between 50gms and 150gms on any given day, but I've never worked out the percentages. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest: The Quality of ADA Dietary Advice > I appreciate the information provided in response to my original question. > All of it is informative (and all clearly passionate) and gives me a good [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Solution which I am still trying to work out (30g carb?, 72g protein? and > the rest ?). > So I was wondering (as percentages) what other people experienced with T2 > were targeting with their food? I decided that as a T2 diabetic already suffering from some of the complications that arise from high average BGs and high BG spikes, my highest priority should be getting both my average BGs and my BG spikes down. So starting with a generally healthy diet I simply removed those things which raised my BG too much. I reasoned that since human beings are omnivores who have adapted successfully to a very wide range of diets that if I kept to a diet that wasn't too far from something my ancestors had lived healthily on I wouldn't go too far wrong. It turns out that removing things which spike my BGs has removed most of the additions to the human diet that farming brought in, namely lots of cereal products and high GI starchy veg. I thought it might also be a good idea to avoid eating the meat of animals which farmers had subjected to the same kind of cheap fattening food. As a result I've ended up eating something akin to a hunter gatherer's diet. Since my general health, digestion, and general feeling of well-being has improved so much on making that kind of dietary transition, I haven't ever bothered to check percentages of macro nutrients. In fact I don't bother with any numbers at all. For example when I want to lose weight I don't do arithmetic with calories. All I do is eat less. It's very simple and it works, especially since I find it much easier to eat less since I removed a lot of the starchy and sugary carbs I used to eat from my diet. They actually have a side effect of making me crave carby snacks which makes it much harder to eat less. I suspect the reason nutritionists are so concerned with numbers and percentages is physics envy. Embarrassed by how unscientific their discipline is, they try to make it look scientific by measuring everything within easy reach and producing lots of graphs and tables and correlations. Hopefully it won't be too long before they discover which numbers are the important ones. I suspect what all those confusinggly different numbers that you came across were telling you was that those numbers aren't the important ones :-) 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/] >So I was wondering (as percentages) what other people experienced with T2 >were targeting with their food? An A1c of <6% - plus normal pps - I'm really not hugely interested in macronutrient percentages. Nicky. T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid D&E, 100ug thyroxine Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25 Phil -- I know this wasn't in your questioning, but what *are* you doing about "&E" in your "D&E" dm management? You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but you really should consider the issue. JMO. bj >I appreciate the information provided in response to my original question. >All of it is informative (and all clearly passionate) and gives me a good [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Diag: January 2007 > D&E, Last HbA1c 5.7% > So I was wondering (as percentages) what other people experienced with T2 > were targeting with their food? When I was newly diagnosed and INexperienced, I tried to do 33% of calories from each. Seemed to work: A1c 12.6 at DX, 8.2 in three months, 4.9 in three more. I also spread it out more and cut way down on the total calories. SignatureWes Groleau Pat's Polemics = http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett >Susan Wrote: >> Phil, low carb diets aren't high protein, they're higher fat and fiber. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >approach IS a high protein diet (30% of calories from protein) >See http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/53/9/2375. Actually, the reading I've done on low-carb diets indicates that they are *adequate* in protein -- not "high." I wouldn't consider 30% to be "high." > Actually, the reading I've done on low-carb diets indicates that they > are *adequate* in protein -- not "high." I wouldn't consider 30% to > be "high." We would have a slight reduction in quantity of argument here if we all would remember that "high" and "low" are NOT numbers. SignatureWes Groleau Even if you do learn to speak correct English, whom are you going to speak it to? -- Clarence Darrow > As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work > on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. It [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Diag: January 2007 > D&E, Last HbA1c 5.7% Hi Phil, Everyone has given you some good ideas. I have one more to offer, and it's not about what you eat, but about how to keep track of which foods effect your BG. While it's true that some people can eat the same exact meal and get different results on both occasions, a lot of times we *think* we're eating the same basic meal because we're eating the same amount of carbs, but your body is going to break down the carbs from different foods at different rates. You can't rely just on carb counting, you've got to tediously check each food. And yes, sometimes it can be tricky. Using myself as an example, I can eat raw carrots with no problems; but cooked ones spike me. Go figure. So what I recommend is to start with a meal you know works for you, say for example, grilled chicken, a green salad, green beans (these foods probably won't spike you, but check to be sure). Then at your next meal, do the chicken, the green salad, and corn. If you get a spike, you can bet it's the corn. You see what I'm getting at. It's tedious, but it works. It causes confusion to make too many changes in the meal at once because then you're not sure what the culprit was if you get a spike. Take lots of notes, and keep good records. You'll get it figured out. Best regards, Michelle C., T2 diet & exercise Michelle C. wrote in message <81e66be7-de53-4c67-807a- sometimes it can be tricky. Using myself as an example, I can eat raw carrots with no problems; but cooked ones spike me. Go figure. I have the same thing going Michelle. Raw carrots no problem, cooked carrots spike, though I'm not big on cooked carrots anyway, so that works. Cheri > Michelle C. wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Cheri Hi Cheri, Glad to know it's not just me. :-) I'll tell you, it took me awhile to figure that out. I saw the spike after cooked carrots, and was afraid of all carrots for awhile, but finally decided to test them raw, and the result was totally different. Best regards, Michelle C., T2 diet & exercise Basically, all cooked vegetables are "spikier", than the same vegetable raw. The cooked ones are far easier to digest and hit as BG faster, and push it higher. > As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work > on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. �It [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Diag: �January 2007 > D&E, Last HbA1c 5.7% You are very new to this and there is a lot to figure out. It takes some time and since you sound motivated you will no doubt find the right successful formula that works for you. Work with a professional to help you establish a good foundation upon which you will build a long lifetime of health. I recommend that you consult with an endocrinologist who specializes in diabetes who can be the leader of your healthcare team and hook you up with the right supplemental players for your particular needs. You might also want to check out these two sites, but nothing is a substitute for live contact with a professional doctor: www.daibetes.org www.joslin.org Good luck. Kurt > You might also want to check out >these two sites, but nothing is a substitute for live contact with a >professional doctor: > >www.daibetes.org Interesting site Kurt. Try it, you'll see what I mean. It works, and includes some really good snake-oil links. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest: The Quality of ADA Dietary Advice > > As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work > > on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. �It [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > www.joslin.org Sorry for the typo on the first link. It's www.diabetes.org (the ADA site) Kurt In addition to your dietary efforts, what are you doing in the "&E" part of the equation? Exercise is not only good in an immediate sense (many find a modest walk shortly after a meal helps post-prandial bg quite a lot) but in an overall sense in how your body adjusts in general. I don't do post-meal exercise but I do do regular exercise (run or walk several times a week). I also take some meds for the ppbg -- but I'm sure it's not as much as if I didn't exercise the way I do. I am not a low-carber. bj > As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to > work on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right > range. It is sometimes quite frustrating when I can see no clear > relationships between the calories, fat, protein or carbs and my BG > readings. > In addition to your dietary efforts, what are you doing in the "&E" part of > the equation? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it's not as much as if I didn't exercise the way I do. I am not a > low-carber. I second bj's recommendation here. Exercise is, IMO, as important as what you eat. Thanks for posting this bj. Kurt >As a newly diagnosed diabetic (not on medication) I am still trying to work >on redefining my lifestyle to keep my blood glucose in the right range. It [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Is this something others doing lower carb - higher protein diets find? Is >there something I'm missing? Well you're obviously learning. Three factors to consider [1] time of day, you will probably (though not always) find you are significantly more affected by carbs in the morning [2] more fats which will slow the absorbtion of the carbs, and maybe also the protein, and even out the swings [3] free veggies http://www.diabetic-talk.org/freeveggies.htm [4] balance the diet with exercise OK, four factors It takes a while to get the balance right for you but you've obviously taken on board the Test Test Test philosophy, keep at it and report back |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.