Dragonheart
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
And that was also why it was seen as progressive until the last few years when remission was acknowledged as a reality.45 to 60% of calories from carbs …….If that let the T2 hit their targets then all well and good, if not the T2 walked up through the quantity and quality of medication available until good control was achieved.
Fantatics? Cult? Please anyone reading take that with a large pinch of salt and recognise it for opinion not fact. 130g of glucose for the brain can be produced by the body from other foods, with zero carbs being eaten. It’s called gluconeogenisis. But i agree that’s likely why that amount is often quoted as being needed even if they mix up glucose and carbs.Recently the dietary agenda at Diabetes UK has been seized by low carb fanatics ( low carbing is more of a cult than a diet) and now a very wooden, one-size-fits-all recommendation of 130 grams of carbs per day is given. The 130 figure is basic since the brain is said to need the amount of glucose a day produced to that provided by 130 grams of carbs.
Even if all 800 calories came from carbs - they don’t - then it would still be 200g carbs a day, not exactly high carb even if it’s not low. The Newcastle diet is a low calorie program not a high carb one.In 2017 the DiRECT study of Roy Taylor went back to a high carb diet (the Newcastle Diet) with a recommended maintenance diet, after losing 15 kg of weight on a crash diet, of 61% of calories coming from carbs.
Low carb can be sustainable. Lots of people have now been doing it years. There’s lots of scare stories and myths surrounding low carb the vast majority are either plain wrong, only apply to a small minority likely with other conditions to consider or are easily avoided. As with anything doing your research first and checking any other conditions or medications are not contraindicated is wise.Traditionally low carbing was frowned on for T2s because a sustainable change of diet and lifestyle was recommended. Plus low carbing was/is associated with problems like cardio disease, kidney problems, thyroid problems and other things like adrenal fatigue. Those problems were what led to the drastic revision of the Atkins Diet in 2012.
One of the reasons for setting goals within the diabetic range is because they were mostly achieved by medication means, whereby hypos and side effects needed to be considered. Hypos can cause an erratic blood glucose level to average out (ie an hb1ac) to a reasonable number despite some serious highs and lows. Not a good thing. It is a consideration, particularly for those of advancing age and with comorbidities to consider the overall burden of health management and the implications of falls etc from a hypo. However to suggest that all type 2 need to maintain above diagnostic levels is plain crazy.Prof Christies work at Cardiff University suggested that optimal HbA1c for T2s was between 6.5 and 8.0% ( about 48 to 70 in new money) and that driving down A1cs to low levels was dangerous for T2s because of unintended consequences. Lowest is not best for T2s suggest some researchers with regard to HbA1c.
For those achieving remission without medication there is no risk of hypo. The good hba1c isn’t a distortion of reality being made to look good by hypos. It’s all reasonable numbers without highs or lows. Graphically it’s a flatish line not the Himalayas. This old fashioned restricted thinking of hb1ac is finally being replaced now that cgm can prove good control isn’t being obtained via hypos. Also in type 1 I believe the focus is changing to time in range, supporting an even level without extremes.
We all have our preferences in management but please let’s not get stuck in the past, turn us all into one homogeneous group that need and react to the same things, or use tabloid style scare tactics for methods that are not our chosen option.