I've never seen the reason for HF

Ipsi

Active Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
This whole thing has made me wonder what is considered inappropriate advice, and exactly what gets reported...

LCHF works for some but I've never seen the reason for HF, I try to stick to LCLFHP. (about 10% carbs, 2% fat and the rest protein). It works for me... hba1c now 42 and dropping, meds reduced again yesterday. Haven't had a bg over 8 for weeks (1st thing in the morning it's always high). Also, no simple carbs (Potatoes/rice/wheat/Parsnips etc. all off the menu). The point is, I think, that the LC bit of the diet is universal, surely? I'm sure I'll be corrected. The other result is that I've now lost 18kg over three years (nearly three stone) at a good, steady, sustainable rate, even though I've increased muscle mass (which hard to do when you're diabetic). I'm not in any danger of having a silly BMI any time soon though, still have 124kg to play with, need to lose another 10kg to get my fat down to an "athletic" level. My understanding is that it's not the carbs or the fat on their own that increase body fat (and we know that visceral fat increases insulin resistance) but the combination of the two. I also read that the average adult only needs 17g of fat a day in their diet, you can get that from about 100g of green olives (or 4oz if you prefer). I know everyone will tell me off again but diabetes can kill me, reducing my carbs intake to a minimum can't. I know there are people with other issues out there and they need to take the best medical advice they can get but, if you are just type 2 - with only minor other health issues (like me) - I can't see what the discussion is about... ...so many people tell me that they monitor their blood sugar levels and have an occasional biscuit/cake/chocolate bar but then restrict their diet when their bg rises to compensate, or "reward" themselves for keeping their bg low for a while by having a "treat". Wouldn't a better reward be to get the diabetes into remission? To completely mitigate the possible outcomes of the degeneration of their condition? Type 2 is almost always a degenerative condition, after all. Now I'll sit back and await everyone vilifying me for stating facts... ...probably get booted.
 

Ljc

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
Hi. Personally I don't do LF . I do normal fat . What I mean is I won't buy anything that is not naturally low fat ie low fat yogurts , mainly because they are often higher carb and the texture and taste often leave a lot to be desired.
On the rare occasions I do roast potatoes, I will use goose fat but I'll only have two small halves.

To me it's a case of moderation and what works for the person.

I'm merely human not an angel, so sometimes I fall off the wagon, but then I climb right back up again. Strangely many things that I consider treats are actually goodies
Celery and humus is one.
 

Ipsi

Active Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
Raw carrots! Yum!
I was a real sweets and chocolate eater before I became diabetic. Then I wasn't. To me, what I eat doesn't define me and isn't a prerequisite of my emotional well-being. I really can't understand it being for anyone else. It's just a change of habituated behaviour. When I was a kid I loved plasticine - obsessed with it, you might say. Now I'm not. We change as we age and mature. Self directed change based on self observation just achieves more. I want to be able to spend retirement fishing and with family (especially my grandchildren) the more years I can give myself a chance of with that, the better. Death is inevitable but I just don't want to lasso it and draw it in.
 

trophywench

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
It's that word 'moderation' though, isn't it?

I interpret it differently than a lot of folk these days it appears - I was brought up to be able to instantly recognise what was a good thing to eat and what wasn't, cos my mother strongly believed in having less of something 'decent' being better than a lot of something that was rubbish. And, she was what my husband now would define as 'fine mouthed' - eg turned her nose up at cod or haddock or brisket of beef or shoulder of lamb - but welcomed plaice or sole, and sirloin and leg of lamb. See what I mean? And always fresh veg from the garden or later dad's allotment. 4 pieces of spud, and two veg. Chips (home made naturally) was once a week, with the plaice, and peas, on a Tuesday.

Plus in the early 1950s with my dad not being paid a fortune, and still rationing - there was never 'spare' food or treats like sweets or crisps. Crisps were only eaten on holiday or hen out for the day when one might venture to licensed premises with a beer garden for a sandwich lunch (unless a picnic was taken) In which case - one could have a bottle of fizzy pop with a straw for a treat, and a packet of Smith's to share with my sister. Sweets came into the house each Friday - a quarter of something for the sweet tin and two chocolate bars out of Mars, Bounty or Crunchie, each of which was divided into slices, and my big sis and I could have one slice of each, every day.

The sweet tin (where the quarter of sweets was tipped into) was brought out on Saturday nights, and it was two each.

We had enough - and absolutely no more.

Anything more, we were told, was just being greedy.

LOL
 

everydayupsanddowns

Administrator
Staff member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
@Ipsi the only thought I had reading your post about dietary composition was the well worn stuff about being careful not to tank your kidneys by loading up the protein - especially because people with diabetes tend to have more vulnerable kidneys anyway.

I've never seen the point in adopting any of the extreme dietary positions that seem to be popular these days. I prefer moderation in everything, with as much 'real' food as I can - fresh, freshly made and as few processes as possible. I moderate carbs on the whole as I find BG easier to manage, but I don't feel the need to go for cauli rice or add slatherings of cheese to everything.

Everyone is different and we all need to find what works for us as individuals. And let others find their own way.
 

Ralph-YK

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
My understanding is that it's not the carbs or the fat on their own that increase body fat ... but the combination of the two.
This is the first time I've heard anything like this. Of course, I'm always complaining about the lack of information. As far as I was aware, fat on it's own definitely can increase body fat, very easily. Which is a big reason for the low fat advice.
 

Bill Stewardson

Well-Known Member
This whole thing has made me wonder what is considered inappropriate advice, and exactly what gets reported...

LCHF works for some but I've never seen the reason for HF, I try to stick to LCLFHP. (about 10% carbs, 2% fat and the rest protein). It works for me... hba1c now 42 and
dropping, meds reduced again yesterday. Haven't had a bg over 8 for weeks (1st thing in the morning it's always high). Also, no simple carbs (Potatoes/rice/wheat/Parsnips etc. all off the menu). The point is, I think, that the LC bit of the diet is universal, surely? I'm sure I'll be corrected. The other result is that I've now lost 18kg over three years (nearly three stone) at a good, steady, sustainable rate, even though I've increased muscle mass (which hard to do when you're diabetic). I'm not in any danger of having a silly BMI any time soon though, still have 124kg to play with, need to lose another 10kg to get my fat down to an "athletic" level. My understanding is that it's not the carbs or the fat on their own that increase body fat (and we know that visceral fat increases insulin resistance) but the combination of the two. I also read that the average adult only needs 17g of fat a day in their diet, you can get that from about 100g of green olives (or 4oz if you prefer). I know everyone will tell me off again but diabetes can kill me, reducing my carbs intake to a minimum can't. I know there are people with other issues out there and they need to take the best medical advice they can get but, if you are just type 2 - with only minor other health issues (like me) - I can't see what the discussion is about... ...so many people tell me that they monitor their blood sugar levels and have an occasional biscuit/cake/chocolate bar but then restrict their diet when their bg rises to compensate, or "reward" themselves for keeping their bg low for a while by having a "treat". Wouldn't a better reward be to get the diabetes into remission? To completely mitigate the possible outcomes of the degeneration of their condition? Type 2 is almost always a degenerative condition, after all. Now I'll sit back and await everyone vilifying me for stating facts... ...probably get booted.
The words of a professor in the field.

Hi Mr Stewardson
I do not think that cutting out carbohydrates is a good thing to do, in the long term. Having a balance of food types is most important.

You have not said whether you are referring to type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes. These are different, and the advice will also be different.

If you are referring to type 1 diabetes, the important thing about eating carbohydrates is that the amount of insulin taken is matched to to the carbohydrates, and getting the right ratio of this is very important. There are many places in the UK where people can attend the DAFNE course to learn how to really do this matching of insulin to carbohydrates is taught, and I would strongly recommend that everyone should at some stage do one of these courses. For type 2 diabetes, there are a number of different courses like Xpert and DESMOND that will also look at how best to learn about food balance.

A balance of food is important and having the carbohydrates is part of this. Getting all energy from fat will in the longer term cause problems with fat and cholesterol metabolism, and circulation. Having too much protein is an inefficient way of getting energy and, in the long term, will put strain on the kidneys. In addition, there are other types of nutrition gained from foods that have carbohydrate, and it is not only the carbohydrate content that is important.

The point about starch is that it is longer acting and having foods containing starch rather than a high content of refined sugar means that the carbohydrate is released over a longer period of time, rather than causing than blood glucose to rise rapidly, and therefore better to have this type of carbohydrate. Changing types of carbohydrate from highly refined carbohydrate to food with more starch means that the glucose should not rise so fast and can be better matched with the insulin, whether it comes from within the body or has to be given from the outside.

Good health and healthy eating is not simply about the blood sugar. Understanding all aspects of diet and health is important, and my experience of working with dietitians at a number of different hospitals is that they do not give bad advice and that consulting them early on is very important. More information could also be obtained from Diabetes UK.

Hope this helps.
Best wishes
 

MikeTurin

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
This is the first time I've heard anything like this. Of course, I'm always complaining about the lack of information. As far as I was aware, fat on it's own definitely can increase body fat, very easily. Which is a big reason for the low fat advice.
That is misleading because if you need say 2000 kcal/day and you cut fats you have to get the calories either from sugars and starches or proteins.
The wrong message is passed is that you have to cut on fats, so you will buy this low fat yogurt that is 130 calories (and 22 gram of+ sugars) instead of the plain wholemilk that is 120 calories (but there's more to eat. You end to eat more sugars, triggering the insulin response that for a non diabetic will transforms the sugars in fats.
 

Bubbsie

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
This whole thing has made me wonder what is considered inappropriate advice, and exactly what gets reported...

LCHF works for some but I've never seen the reason for HF, I try to stick to LCLFHP. (about 10% carbs, 2% fat and the rest protein). It works for me... hba1c now 42 and dropping, meds reduced again yesterday. Haven't had a bg over 8 for weeks (1st thing in the morning it's always high). Also, no simple carbs (Potatoes/rice/wheat/Parsnips etc. all off the menu). The point is, I think, that the LC bit of the diet is universal, surely? I'm sure I'll be corrected. The other result is that I've now lost 18kg over three years (nearly three stone) at a good, steady, sustainable rate, even though I've increased muscle mass (which hard to do when you're diabetic). I'm not in any danger of having a silly BMI any time soon though, still have 124kg to play with, need to lose another 10kg to get my fat down to an "athletic" level. My understanding is that it's not the carbs or the fat on their own that increase body fat (and we know that visceral fat increases insulin resistance) but the combination of the two. I also read that the average adult only needs 17g of fat a day in their diet, you can get that from about 100g of green olives (or 4oz if you prefer). I know everyone will tell me off again but diabetes can kill me, reducing my carbs intake to a minimum can't. I know there are people with other issues out there and they need to take the best medical advice they can get but, if you are just type 2 - with only minor other health issues (like me) - I can't see what the discussion is about... ...so many people tell me that they monitor their blood sugar levels and have an occasional biscuit/cake/chocolate bar but then restrict their diet when their bg rises to compensate, or "reward" themselves for keeping their bg low for a while by having a "treat". Wouldn't a better reward be to get the diabetes into remission? To completely mitigate the possible outcomes of the degeneration of their condition? Type 2 is almost always a degenerative condition, after all. Now I'll sit back and await everyone vilifying me for stating facts... ...probably get booted.
Why would anyone vilify you for stating the facts Ipsi...however it might have been better if you had clarified your comments and made it clear you stated the facts as 'you see them'...this is not the copy/editorial department of some awful tabloid newspaper...where there's only room for diabetes bashing...it's a forum...it's all about discussion...differing opinions...I'm happy to hear reasoned debate...valid comments...yes diabetes can kill you...anything can kill you...as for the inevitably of degeneration...I disagree with you on that point...I am not just a 'type 2'...in view of the complicated nature of diabetes...the individuality of our diets...wondering how you categorise diabetes as a minor health issue...not directly stated in your post...but...if you say you only have minor health issues...I presume you include your diabetes in that?...or would that be in addition to your diabetes... I disagree on that point too...my diabetes is not a minor health issue...it's complicated...I doubt many of us here could adopt exactly the same regime to manage/control our diabetes as you or any of us have...achieve the same results as each other...there are many considerations...age...weight...stress...anxiety...mental health problems...work...sex...all of those factors need to be taken into account...I do relax my control...very occasionally...I call it living...necessary for me (and others)...despite that currently I am heading for non-diabetic range at my next review...I am happy to engage in debate with you...and others...however...that is difficult when your message is unclear...if I choose to disagree with your points...if I want to discuss what I disagree with reasonably (we all want to be considered reasonable)...would that be vilifying you...is that how you would view it...if so...surely that defeats the object of the questions you've posed?
 

everydayupsanddowns

Administrator
Staff member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
The words of a professor in the field...

A balance of food is important and having the carbohydrates is part of this. Getting all energy from fat will in the longer term cause problems with fat and cholesterol metabolism, and circulation. Having too much protein is an inefficient way of getting energy and, in the long term, will put strain on the kidneys. In addition, there are other types of nutrition gained from foods that have carbohydrate, and it is not only the carbohydrate content that is important.

The point about starch is that it is longer acting and having foods containing starch rather than a high content of refined sugar means that the carbohydrate is released over a longer period of time, rather than causing than blood glucose to rise rapidly, and therefore better to have this type of carbohydrate.
This is a really interesting post Bill, thanks for sharing it. I've been trying to unpick it. In some ways I can agree with much of what it says... but in others it seems to be mired in old thinking that is being repeatedly overtaken by newer studies.

For example:

'starches = slow release and only sugar is really bad' This has been demonstrated not to be the case at all. There was a very interesting study in Cell which found that even pure glucose could not be guaranteed to be faster absorbed in some people than, say, bread. Absorption speed of different types of carbs in very complex and very individual. There are *some* general principles which seem to apply, but none of us can be sure that, for example, wholemeal bread will have much measurable difference in absorption to a jam doughnut *unless we check how our own system responds*

We've only really had the obsession with fat being bad for a few decades. And as soon as that really kicked in and policy decided that fat was harmful and that protein needed to be kept an eye on, the only remaining macronutrient was carbohydrate - so the proportions of what was thought to be 'healthy' on the plate changed. Think about it - it has so seeped into public consciousness that people will refer to a popular soft drink as 'full fat Coke' if it is the sugary version. Coke has absolutely no fat in it whatsoever - but fat has become a synonym for 'fattening'. Then alongside this came big rises in popularity of things like pasta, of course, which has lead to many people having a quite imbalanced plate because they were so focussed on keeping fat down that they could choose 'low fat' whatever and feel like they were winning.

There is an awful lot of recent research that suggests very strongly that the assocation between fat, even saturated fat, and heart disease is much much more complex than has been suggested for decades. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26586275).

I'm also slightly mystified by the 'other things' that are suggested to be in starchy (by which I assume they are meaning largely wheat/cereal/grain-based) foods. Breakfast cereals, as an example, are notoriously singular in their nutritional offering. So much so that they have to be 'fortified' with notional added vitamins because apart from that they are essentially a large bowl of sugar, in slightly longer molecular chains.

Personally I suspect we would be much better giving more attention to how 'processed' our foods are rather than how sugary or fatty. Just my opinion though, as a lay observer, of course. And as I say I am not a low carber myself - I'd much rather opt for moderate carb, moderate protein, lots of veg and leaves and some good quality fats. You can't entirely cut carbs out (and personally I'm not really sure ketogenic diets are a brilliant idea) but I do find myself thinking that the 250-300g recommended CHO intake for adults is not ideal for me either. Certainly I have a much harder time with my BG on days when I approach that level of intake.
 

Bill Stewardson

Well-Known Member
This is a really interesting post Bill, thanks for sharing it. I've been trying to unpick it. In some ways I can agree with much of what it says... but in others it seems to be mired in old thinking that is being repeatedly overtaken by newer studies.
As they say in F1 to stand still is to go backwards which surely applies to medical treatment regimes.
I went off on the wrong track and reduced carbs to zero, turns out this will likely cause problems in the long run. That was partly due to being endlessly lectured about healthy eating which is how Ive always eaten anyway.
Not every one can avoid processed foods, I certainly try to as I see it as common sense, maybe I'm wrong here but I just don't trust processed stuff.
Either way, at some point people in our position have to take the word of well qualified clinicians at some point, and therein lays the problem.
Uninformed advice may well be given in good faith, it is though still uninformed.
For example:

'starches = slow release and only sugar is really bad' This has been demonstrated not to be the case at all. There was a very interesting study in Cell which found that even pure glucose could not be guaranteed to be faster absorbed in some people than, say, bread. Absorption speed of different types of carbs in very complex and very individual. There are *some* general principles which seem to apply, but none of us can be sure that, for example, wholemeal bread will have much measurable difference in absorption to a jam doughnut *unless we check how our own system responds*

We've only really had the obsession with fat being bad for a few decades. And as soon as that really kicked in and policy decided that fat was harmful and that protein needed to be kept an eye on, the only remaining macronutrient was carbohydrate - so the proportions of what was thought to be 'healthy' on the plate changed. Think about it - it has so seeped into public consciousness that people will refer to a popular soft drink as 'full fat Coke' if it is the sugary version. Coke has absolutely no fat in it whatsoever - but fat has become a synonym for 'fatening'. Then alongside this came big rises in popularity of things like pasta, of course, which has lead to many people having a quite imbalanced plate because they were so focussed on keeping fat down that they could choose 'low fat' whatever and feel like they were winning.

There is an awful lot of recent research that suggests very strongly that the assocation between fat, even saturated fat, and heart disease is much much more complex than has been suggested for decades. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26586275).

I'm also slightly mystified by the 'other things' that are suggested to be in starchy (by which I assume they are meaning largely cereal-based) foods. Breakfast cereals, as an example, are notoriously singular in their nutritional offering. So much so that they have to be 'fortified' with notional added vitamins because apart from that they are essentially a large bowl of sugar, in slightly longer molecular chains.

Personally I suspect we would be much better giving more attention to how 'processed' our foods are rather than how sugary or fatty. Just my opinion though, as a lay observer, of course. And as I say I am not a low carber myself - I'd much rather opt for moderate carb, moderate protein, lots of veg and leaves and some good quality fats. You can't entirely cut carbs out (and personally I'm not really sure ketogenic diets are a brilliant idea) but I do find myself thinking that the 250-300g recommended CHO intake for adults is not ideal for me either. Certainly I have a much harder time with my BG on days when I approach that level of intake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ljc

MikeTurin

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
I'm also slightly mystified by the 'other things' that are suggested to be in starchy (by which I assume they are meaning largely cereal-based) foods. Breakfast cereals, as an example, are notoriously singular in their nutritional offering. So much so that they have to be 'fortified' with notional added vitamins because apart from that they are essentially a large bowl of sugar, in slightly longer molecular chains.
If you munch for some time some white bread you''lnoce that it will become sweeter because the statch is broken down in glucose by the saliva....
Personally I suspect we would be much better giving more attention to how 'processed' our foods are rather than how sugary or fatty. Just my opinion though, as a lay observer, of course. And as I say I am not a low carber myself - I'd much rather opt for moderate carb, moderate protein, lots of veg and leaves and some good quality fats. You can't entirely cut carbs out (and personally I'm not really sure ketogenic diets are a brilliant idea) but I do find myself thinking that the 250-300g recommended CHO intake for adults is not ideal for me either. Certainly I have a much harder time with my BG on days when I approach that level of intake.
I think the correct term is a reduced carb diet. I stay away with processed starchy food like crisps, breakfast cereals, prepackaged bread or snacks. I eat fruits, wholegrain wheat or rye crispbread, wholegrain pasta, sometimes rice and the occasional piece of cake - not the industrial ones but the one made in bakeries or by friends or relatives. I skip potatoes because I don't like them very much. I eat a lot of vegetables especially seasonal vegetables either raw or cooked (steamed or fried) and also some cheese and eggs and some meat. I like to eat raw meat with olive oil and lemon and of course good raw ham or sausages.

Before the dieting advice I was eatin a lot more carbs than now, and was eatins a lot of low quality foods, so I suppose my diet was based on carbs. Now I think I am at a 40% carb 40% fats 20% proteins diet instead of the 70% carbs 20% fats 10% protein before...
 

Bubbsie

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
For type 2 diabetes, there are a number of different courses like Xpert and DESMOND that will also look at how best to learn about food balance.
and my experience of working with dietitians at a number of different hospitals is that they do not give bad advice
Good health and healthy eating is not simply about the blood sugar
Bill well done for eliciting a response...however...I find some of the goodly Professor's views disappointing...firstly it's clear he knows little about the courses run for diabetics...for myself the DESMOND course was not informative..it was.patronising...badly run...it gave no consideration to individuals or alternative diets...or the need for self monitoring blood Glucose...I took/gained nothing from it.

1.the protocol on The DESMOND course followed the standard NHS 'eat well plate'...carbs at every meal...at least one third of a plate...with that regime I have no doubt if I had followed their advice my BG would have still been in double figures.
2.Dietitians do & can give bad advice...as experienced from The Desmond Course I attended...no profession...no matter how sacrosanct can ever be 100% safe from some of its members giving ineffectual/bad...out of date advice.
3.For me as a diabetic (some of you may take exception to that term...my preference to call myself that) Good Health & Healthy eating is all about my blood sugars.
 

Bill Stewardson

Well-Known Member
Bill well done for eliciting a response...however...I find some of the goodly Professor's views disappointing...firstly it's clear he knows little about the courses run for diabetics...for myself the DESMOND course was not informative..it was.patronising...badly run...it gave no consideration to individuals or alternative diets...or the need for self monitoring blood Glucose...
took/gained nothing from it.

1.the protocol on The DESMOND course followed the standard NHS 'eat well plate'...carbs at every meal...at least one third of a plate...with that regime I have no doubt if I had followed their advice my BG would have still been in double figures.
2.Dietitians do & can give bad advice...as experienced from The Desmond Course I attended...no profession...no matter how sacrosanct can ever be 100% safe from some of its members giving ineffectual/bad...out of date advice.
3.For me as a diabetic (some of you may take exception to that term...my preference to call myself that) Good Health & Healthy eating is all about my blood sugars.
Absolutely Bubbsie. I am starting to see a huge chasm between the intent of those at the top of the "treatment tree" and those who actually deal with us on a day to day basis.
This is not where I expected my digging to end up but there you go.

In the end it all comes down to personal choice based upon input from others, which combined with how very different we all are creates something of a lottery. This is the fine margin in which improvements CAN be made.
I will post elsewhere about some stuff which took place on Sunday which will graphically illustrate my points.
 

Bubbsie

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
Raw carrots! Yum!
I was a real sweets and chocolate eater before I became diabetic. Then I wasn't. To me, what I eat doesn't define me and isn't a prerequisite of my emotional well-being. I really can't understand it being for anyone else. It's just a change of habituated behaviour. When I was a kid I loved plasticine - obsessed with it, you might say. Now I'm not. We change as we age and mature. Self directed change based on self observation just achieves more. I want to be able to spend retirement fishing and with family (especially my grandchildren) the more years I can give myself a chance of with that, the better. Death is inevitable but I just don't want to lasso it and draw it in.
I'm sorry Ipsi...I just cannot follow your rationale here...diabetes doesn't define me...being diabetic does...whether I like it or not...it is a pre-requisite of my well being...emotionally & otherwise...I consider it daily in the management of my condition...I have no objection to you holding those views yourself...however...when you say you 'don't understand it being for anyone else'...that's a step too far for me...you are entitled to your opinion...but...not to mine or anyone else's here (or elsewhere)...those are our own...not to be directed in such a dogmatic manner...as for playing with plasticine...is that really analogous to trying to manage/control diabetes... breaking eating habits that many of us here had...that few of us were aware could possibly damage us in the long term...things that many would be able to eat...good for the majority...considered healthy....but not for those 'fighting' diabetes...really there is no comparison...plasticine/diabetes...you've 'no wish to lasso & draw death in'...a strange observation...does that imply those of us that do not follow your mantra of self directed change based on self observation do?...I would not seek to vilify you...merely to understand exactly where you are coming from.
 

Amigo

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
It's all very confusing and conflicting in terms of what we are told. I've never been able to fully embrace the high fat per se argument because it's counter intuitive to me. So I've adapted the fats to suit me and on the basis that not all fats are created equal. Even when I initially adopted the LCHF approach after dx, I lost weight and got my Hb down nicely but my cholesterol stayed high as did my trigs.

No matter how I try and no matter how much people tell me it works without 'damage', I can't get my head round slathering mountains of Lurpack butter on things and covering things with cheese and double cream. I know it slows the glucose hit down but obviously, years of being told 'fat is bad' is hard to shake off.
 

Bubbsie

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
Absolutely Bubbsie. I am starting to see a huge chasm between the intent of those at the top of the "treatment tree" and those who actually deal with us on a day to day basis.
This is not where I expected my digging to end up but there you go.

In the end it all comes down to personal choice based upon input from others, which combined with how very different we all are creates something of a lottery. This is the fine margin in which improvements CAN be made.
I will post elsewhere about some stuff which took place on Sunday which will graphically illustrate my points.
Blimey Bill...you may have enough soon for a real expose on the beliefs that some of our 'experts' in specialist subjects hold...I do agree with you...however the difficulty is knowing something happens...or that a commonly held belief is wrong...and proving... it is vast...you'll have your work cut out...but...in for a penny...in for a pound.
 

Bill Stewardson

Well-Known Member
Blimey Bill...you may have enough soon for a real expose on the beliefs that some of our 'experts' in specialist subjects hold...I do agree with you...however the difficulty is knowing something happens...or that a commonly held belief is wrong...and proving... it is vast...you'll have your work cut out...but...in for a penny...in for a pound.
Im just a lone voice on the side of a hill in Yorkshire,

I will be heard though.
 

Bubbsie

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
It's all very confusing and conflicting in terms of what we are told. I've never been able to fully embrace the high fat per se argument because it's counter intuitive to me. So I've adapted the fats to suit me and on the basis that not all fats are created equal. Even when I initially adopted the LCHF approach after dx, I lost weight and got my Hb down nicely but my cholesterol stayed high as did my trigs.

No matter how I try and no matter how much people tell me it works without 'damage', I can't get my head round slathering mountains of Lurpack butter on things and covering things with cheese and double cream. I know it slows the glucose hit down but obviously, years of being told 'fat is bad' is hard to shake off.
I felt very much the same way Amigo...difficult to shake off that concept...believe when most people hear the term 'high fat' in conjunction with low carb (non-diabetics)...they misunderstand the concept...I just use butter instead of processed spreads...full fat yoghurts and so on...the list is endless..in moderation...my cholesterol has gone down...but only slightly...that did worry me initially a great deal...however...after doing some research inspired by Mark Parrot (haven't seen him here for some time)...I realised that my cholesterol break down was the important factor...whilst the overall cholesterol had not reduced by much...my trigs & the HDL (hopefully I've got it right & that is the good one) had...both those were in normal range...that gave me some reassurance I was on the right track...I plan to try to reduce the overall figure total further...until I'm at that stage... understanding the ratios in the breakdown helped me to decide whether or not I should take statins.
 

Bubbsie

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
Im just a lone voice on the side of a hill in Yorkshire,

I will be heard though.
Wouldn't agree with that Bill...I've heard similar from others here...I have no doubt you will be heard...however...many of us here also challenge the concept that we need to be herded like sheep...all corralled in the same pen...Bill Stewardson...what have you done to me...fired me up now...I may join you on that crusade!
 
Top