slightly misleading information

[Marmite]

I have information from my Zoom mentor (pre-diabetes course - with a masters in nutrition etc) who has explained my concerns and confusion relating to what I have learnt from this site.
I have previously introduced myself as non-knowing pre-diabetes new member.
Ref to carbs and sugar; Yes, as "you" tell me , all food is carbs and broken down into my body and BS, but it seems there is a big difference between added and natural occurring sugars. It seems I can eat starchy foods as they are complex and related to fibre and fat and do not have the same affect as added sugar. "Don't count carbs" is the advice - " just have sensible portions, no added sugars , and plenty of exercise".
IF I were diabetic then I would need to consider carbs more seriously because of poor insulin function. So a good explanation at last which I now understand.
REf to food labels; (again); Does anyone think the "of which sugars" is a bit pointless as don't know if they are added or natural.
Thank you for listening and it's good to talk, - just wish there was more agreement.

 

[Kaylz]

🙄 you come to a diabetes forum and tell us that carbs aren't a problem, even if your just at risk carbs will push your BG up and put you at a higher risk of becoming a full blown diabetic, the idea is to keep your levels in range to limit that chance, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference if they are natural or added, its all glucose, you may have spoken to someone with a masters in nutrition but have they lived with diabetes? I'm guessing not

 

[Deleted member 27171]

Hi @Marmite - with regards the ‘of which sugars’ I think the only way to really tell is to look at the ingredients and see what sort of sugars are included, then it’s probably just an educated guess based on the food type.

I‘m not sure if the advice you have been given does differ hugely (though admittedly don’t know all you have read on the forum) - could there be some cohesion after all? Where your mentor suggests ‘sensible portions’ were they specific about what this meant? People with/at risk of diabetes dont have to totally avoid carbs, but they may choose ‘senisble portions’ of that food group at each meal like any other food.

Some people do eat no carbs and that works well for them, but I think more generally the advice here (although this varies hugely as all based on personal experiences) is to limit them and as your mentor suggests that doesn’t mean counting every carbohydrate it just means making sensible choices and eating them in moderate amounts - as is the advice for most things.

 

[Sally71]

As far as diabetes is concerned there is no difference between natural and added sugar, honey, fruits and sweets will all make my daughter's blood sugar go up equally quickly!

 

[Madeline]

Who told you ‘all food is carbs’?

The only difference between complex and simple carbs is the length of time it takes for them to convert to glucose. A potato breaks down just the same as a slice of wholemeal, and fructose will hit you just as hard as a spoonful of sugar.

 

[Largesse1!]

I have information from my Zoom mentor (pre-diabetes course - with a masters in nutrition etc) who has explained my concerns and confusion relating to what I have learnt from this site.
I have previously introduced myself as non-knowing pre-diabetes new member.
Ref to carbs and sugar; Yes, as "you" tell me , all food is carbs and broken down into my body and BS, but it seems there is a big difference between added and natural occurring sugars. It seems I can eat starchy foods as they are complex and related to fibre and fat and do not have the same affect as added sugar. "Don't count carbs" is the advice - " just have sensible portions, no added sugars , and plenty of exercise".
IF I were diabetic then I would need to consider carbs more seriously because of poor insulin function. So a good explanation at last which I now understand.
REf to food labels; (again); Does anyone think the "of which sugars" is a bit pointless as don't know if they are added or natural.
Thank you for listening and it's good to talk, - just wish there was more agreement.

I suspect you are getting some of the information confused, which is not too hard given the amount of information I am sure you are digesting - excuse the pun - at the moment.

First of all, no one would have told you 'all food is carbs'. I have been on the site a lot since my recent diagnosis and no one ever suggested such a thing. Most foods contain a percentage of carbs, and those carbs are turned to sugar by the body, as is actual sugar (sucrose) including fructose (fruit) and lactose (milk). Managing the percentage you eat in one meal or over a day, however you measure it, is a very personal choice. It necessitates keeping a food diary and apps like MyFitnesspal will help you with such measurements. You set your percentages and then as you enter your food (there is a huge database of recipes all calculated for you) the measurements are done for you and the percentages shown. It is often quite surprising what is high in carbs. It is not always the obvious!

I think you also must have misunderstood what your mentor was advising as you also seem to have mixed up starch, dietary fibre and carbs. Fibre is such an important factor in how our digestive system functions that when a food has lots of fibre it can compensate, to a degree, for the carbs. Starchy foods don't necessarily contain much fibre. 'Both starch and fibre are long chains of glucose molecules, but we are unable to digest the bonds between the glucose units in fibre. Therefore, fibre moves through the small intestine undigested while starch is broken down into glucose and absorbed.' (http://www.napavalley.edu/people/fchen/Documents/BIOL 103 Homework Ch 4 Answer Key.pdf)

So it's not quite as simple as excluding or including food groups.

Although for a pre-diabetic who doesn't want the faff of measuring then avoiding sugar and reducing obvious carbs to smaller portions is a sensible approach. But perhaps worth learning how to manage the percentages to work against it developing?

Once you have set your own percentage most people here also use finger-prick testing to see how their BG spikes 2 hours after eating to know which foods cause their own body's response to be particularly problematic and adjust their diet accordingly. This will be different for every individual but there are usually quite a few commonalities and that's great to share here as you get to know your own diabetes or pre-diabetes. If there is no need for you to test yourself you can live vicariously but reading the posts of others who do. It's fascinating!

It might seem like a lot of faff on the face of it but it is extremely interesting to find out how food impacts your own system. Personally, once I started applying the information gleaned from various sources the result has been transformative. I'm losing weight and my BG is now well within range.

Good luck! And whilst it is incredibly difficult to absorb so much information and not get it mixed up, it's important to keep trying to unravel the mixed up elements rather than pronouncing absolutes...

Best wishes

 

[DaveB]

Im afriad you are confused as others have already said. Food is made up of three main food groups i.e. Carbs, Fats and Proteins so not all Carbs. All Carbs turn to glucose in the stomach; complex ones more slowly. There is no difference between natural and refined sugars as all turn to glucose in the body. When a Pack lists Carbs the 'of which added sugar' aspect is largely irrelevant as the whole lot are carbs. You just need to know the Total Carbs figure.

 

[rebrascora]

I am guessing that, since the OP (@Marmite) is only "at risk of diabetes", then the mentor has just simplified things by suggesting that they just cut out added sugar and eat complex carbs (ie Low GI) in order to bring their HbA1c back into the normal range. Basically the "Eat Well plate" NHS advice. This may well be enough of a change to work for the OP depending upon their current (or pre diagnosis) diet. It will certainly not work for everyone with diabetes as we all know, but if someone is confused then suggesting a simple way forward is probably more helpful to them.

@Marmite I wish you luck in following this advice and it may well work for you, but it is not advice that will work for full blown diabetics or even some pre diabetics, which is why we advocate testing here on the forum, so that people can see which foods cause them problems.

As regards the "of which sugars" you would need to look at the ingredients list to see if sugar has been added to the product as the natural sugars are included in the "of which sugars" info but I think your mentor is probably just suggesting you opt for "No added sugar" products which usually have that info on the front of the label.... like baked beans, fruit cordial etc.

 

[Drummer]

If you are in danger of diabetes then the sensible thing to do is to use a blood glucose meter and see what is true for you - because so much of what is said or written is what one person has found, or can cope with, or even has made up.
You should be able to eat meat, fish, eggs, cheese and other foods with under 10 percent carbs fairly freely. The source of the carbs is usually fairly irrelevant - they all end up in our bloodstream if we choose to eat them.
I find that beans and peas, the legumes, all seem to spike my readings more than might be expected, so it is not simply a case of a set amount of carbs will result in a rise of so much.
The no added sugar labelling can be dangerous if there is starch or sugar in the item already - mashed potato would not have added sugar, but it is still high carb.
Sensible portions of high sugar fruits would - for me - be a teaspoonful to lightly flavour my full fat yoghurt as the sugars in it would make my blood glucose level soar.
If you are unable to cope with carbohydrate now, it will always be the case, and starting to deal with it now would be my advice, as a return to normality from full on diabetes would be a longer road to travel.

 

[Marmite]

To all the above contributions I am grateful and thank you all.
I do understand much of what you say and most of it seems to make sense when I read it. You are all correct in realising I am confused - at least we can all agree on that. My course is nhs suggested by my doctor and yes, based on "live well......." Maybe my mentors explanation IS a simple explanation for my little brain but it is very disconcerting to have such opposite advice. Maybe this will change between type 2 and pre.
Since diagnosis 5 months ago I really do look at carb ratings - esp on bread and cereals. I have also avoided potato quite often and exchanged for quinoa/brown rice mix (so I am listening ). It's this bit of recent input which seems to confuse once again. (and please don't get cross Kaylz, it isn't ME saying don't count carbs). Just thinking aloud; for all new comers it is a huge impact to suddenly have so much advice ;- diet/exercise/BS/meter readings/completely opposite ideas on food esp US sites/portion size/eat fruit -don't eat fruit/grains/nuts/etc. etc.
I will read all your (above) replies many times, thank you for taking such trouble.

 

[Madeline]

Lol you’re not the only one confused! The information I was given here was in direct opposition to what my DSN and my consultant AND the dietician said. They were insistent that I should be eating at least 40g carbs with every meal, 2 pieces of fruit a day, etc etc, and it was a battle royal to get them to understand that was actually making me even more ill - I had to wheel out the big guns (daughter studying bio med) and show them the results on my meter compared to a very detailed food diary. Only then would they put me on insulin, which worked immediately. They still won’t even address that I’m likely type 1 late onset, despite having a type 1 parent. and no history of type 2 in the family. It seems a real hit and miss affair with the NHS, some areas are up to date, others are firmly stuck in the past - it’s exactly the same with asthma consultants too!

 

[Marmite]

Thank you Madeline both for your reply and for understanding. I could chat for hours ( not to argue, but to fathom out diabetes ). I read today in Waitrose food magazine ; "complex carbs (wholemeal/quinoa/oats/lentils/etc ) are great for energy"
"low carbs in general do not support an active lifestyle"
"carbs are the body's preferred source of fuel - not only for energy, but for our brain, muscles, and major organs to function properly"
"When the carbs contain lots of fibre and fat it reduces the GI leading to a steadier release of energy and stops the BS levels seesawing"
"starchy food release energy slowly/gradually" - so why can't I eat potatoes?
This will surprise our friend Drummer who says how he has progressed on low carbs and maintained good energy levels.
Without taking meter readings, what affect should I be feeling ? How will I know I have too much BS?
Do we agree exercise must be relative to age. If so, we old people stand less chance to burn off the excess sugar which hinders progress.
Apart from my last three questions, Madeline, I think you will say re-read your last post, but I would still be be interested on your Waitrose response.
Thanks again Madeline and everyone for listening - just trying to find out in my own way - not in any way argumentative.

 

[rebrascora]

Carbs ARE the body's preferred source of energy because it can break them down quickly and easily.... unless you are diabetic in which case the glucose from them sits in your blood stream doing damage.
It is perfectly possible to be active on a very low carb diet. Fat and protein still release glucose but to a much lesser extent (10% fat breaks down into glucose and 40% protein) but over a much longer time scale, so in effect they are like very low GI carbs. My body breaks down jumbo oats porridge which should be low GI within an hour which is not that much longer than a Mars Bar whereas the protein and fat from eggs will take several hours to start releasing that glucose and continue to release it for several hours more so my body, when I am active, will be able to run off that glucose for several hours without a need to top up whereas if the glucose is released in one short spike over an hour or two, my body can't handle it all and some will be stored as fat and then I will need more later, or my body will need to break down the fat to get it back. The other problem with carbs is that because you get a sharp spike in BG levels after eating, you then get a drop afterwards and your brain feels that drop and worries that it is running out of fuel and triggers a hunger response so that you eat more. If it has a steady trickle of glucose from the breakdown of protein and fat you don't get that BG drop after eating carbs so you don't feel peckish and start looking for a snack 2 hours after you ate a meal like when you eat carbs.... the less carbs you eat, the less you feel hungry and the less you need to eat, which aids with weight loss and makes sticking to a diet much easier.
I sometimes only need one meal a day or two small meals and don't feel hungry in between and I have an active lifestyle... I am 55 years old and have 4 horses to look after.... and I eat about 30-50g carbs a day. I was addicted to sugar pre diagnosis and ate a lot of sweets and chocolate as well as bread and potatoes and pasta too. It amazes me how little I eat now and how much better I feel both physically and mentally as a result of my diet change.

 

[Madeline]

Yep, I get most of my energy from fat. I’m still on a basal type slow release insulin which isn’t really supporting me eating many carbs - I never go over 100g a day, and rarely eat more than 60g. Going high is a miserable experience and makes me feel hideous, it’s simply not worth it.

Some people’s bodies work ok with the slower release type carbs, others don’t. I’m one of the don't - anything carby hits me like a steam train. Yesterday and the day before I was 10+ within a few hours of eating one slice of seeded wholemeal toast, after 4 units of insulin. Unfortunately that’s diabetes, your body just can’t ‘do’ carbs. Prediabetics cope better, but that is the future for them if they do go on to develop diabetes, sadly.

Before I became ill my lifestyle was very similar to @rebrascora, I had horses, an eventer and a youngster I was bringing on, and 4 dogs, who I used to walk 10 miles a day in addition to everything else. I also had a big garden to look after and pretty much never sat down. I was fit as anything, and all on a low carb diet - I’m a savoury eater luckily for me, so my diet was pretty high fat and protein and vegetables, and I’ve not changed it that much. Not a snacker either. Fat is a really good fuel for the body and much kinder to the old liver.

 

[Drummer]

Unfortunately most of what is written down and accepted as the gospel truth - particularly when it comes to food - doesn't prove correct in all circumstances.
For me - low GI is not an advantage, fibre doesn't slow down digestion, and my low carb lifestyle is supporting me dashing about as a musician for a couple of morris sides, we do maypole and longsword too. I might be almost 70 years old but am not about to be an old person.
Unfortunately I cannot exchange a high carb food for a high carb food and gain any advantage. bread, potato, rice, quinoa are all starches and they all cause the same reaction, an increase in BG.

 

[silentsquirrel]

Thank you Madeline both for your reply and for understanding. I could chat for hours ( not to argue, but to fathom out diabetes ). I read today in Waitrose food magazine ; "complex carbs (wholemeal/quinoa/oats/lentils/etc ) are great for energy"
"low carbs in general do not support an active lifestyle"
"carbs are the body's preferred source of fuel - not only for energy, but for our brain, muscles, and major organs to function properly"
"When the carbs contain lots of fibre and fat it reduces the GI leading to a steadier release of energy and stops the BS levels seesawing"
"starchy food release energy slowly/gradually" - so why can't I eat potatoes?
This will surprise our friend Drummer who says how he has progressed on low carbs and maintained good energy levels.
Without taking meter readings, what affect should I be feeling ? How will I know I have too much BS?
Do we agree exercise must be relative to age. If so, we old people stand less chance to burn off the excess sugar which hinders progress.
Apart from my last three questions, Madeline, I think you will say re-read your last post, but I would still be be interested on your Waitrose response.
Thanks again Madeline and everyone for listening - just trying to find out in my own way - not in any way argumentative.

I may have missed it, but I don't think you said that the article was written for diabetics. For non-diabetics, much of it may be true, but the whole point of diabetes is that we find carbs difficult to deal with, so for a diabetic it is best to restrict (not totally eliminate) carbs.
If you are prediabetic (at risk of diabetes) and do not wish to progress to full-blown diabetes, you would do well to also restrict carbs, but can probably cope with a slightly higher total. Maybe start at 150g total carbs a day.

If you take meter readings before and 2 hours after a meal, you will be able to see how particular foods affect you. Some people can feel when they have high blood sugar - sick, headache, tired - but many cannot feel the highs, so if you do not wish to test it would be best to be more strict.

Your meter may tell you you can eat a small portion of potatoes (new are less carby than old), but if you do not test you will not know!

Exercise - I am not very mobile so cannot do much, you do what you can. I believe googling chair exercises may be helpful. But however much exercise you can do, diet is more important.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Sorry that you’ve found some of the experiences and suggestions made by forum members confusing @Marmite - we are all just muddling along and trying to work out what works for us as individuals - to the best of our understanding, and helped by results from a BG meter that shows what happens when we eat different foods 🙂

These are my personal thoughts on the Waitrose quotes

I read today in Waitrose food magazine ; "complex carbs (wholemeal/quinoa/oats/lentils/etc ) are great for energy"

Carbs are the body’s preferred source of energy, because they are broken down quickly, beginning as soon as a saliva comes into contact with the food. However, if a person’s metabolism is beginning to struggle with the modern Western diet (which usually contains a high proportion of carbohydrate) then some glucose disregulation can occur leading to a person being identified as ‘at risk of diabetes’ (prediabetes) or getting a diagnosis of diabetes.

"low carbs in general do not support an active lifestyle"

I feel that is an opinion, rather than a fact. There are populations in various parts of the world with very hard physical lives and very limited access to carbohydrate, who need to be active but cannot rely on carbs to provide that energy.

"carbs are the body's preferred source of fuel - not only for energy, but for our brain, muscles, and major organs to function properly"

Certainly in the UK it is much easier to choose a diet that contains a proportion of carbohydrate. We do have members who are particularly sensitive to carbs and who aim for ketosis, where the metabolism adapts to burn fat as fuel through dietary ketosis, bit the vast majority of forum members incorporate carbs into their menu, at a level which seems to provide reasonable blood glucose management on the whole. This amount of carbohydrate caries widely from person to person, and is generally discovered by using a BG meter to observe how the body reacts to different foods (checking before and 2 hours after eating)

"When the carbs contain lots of fibre and fat it reduces the GI leading to a steadier release of energy and stops the BS levels seesawing”

Forum members certainly observe that fibre and fat can slow the release of carbs (eg the ‘pizza effect‘, or adding cream/butter/full fat yoghurt to dishes). Fibre seems to help some more than others.

And both effects seems to have a lot of exceptions where some people see little if any difference in wholemeal bread/pasta vs white, or where breakfast cereals like Weetabix can act like rocketfuel in some members (including me) despite a hefty amount of fibre.

In general, the evidence for GI seems fairly weak. It can provide a useful guide, but GI is a fairly artificial measure (averaged results of 100 people eating 50g carbs of a single food in isolation), where the average can be derived from a wide range of individual results.

"starchy food release energy slowly/gradually" - so why can't I eat potatoes?

You absolutely can, if you would like to! And no member here can say what the exact effect on your blood glucose will be from eating potatoes. Only that as a source of carbohydrate, they have a potential to raise your BG sharply and dramatically. They might be able to say whether potatoes give them big BG rises within 30-60 minutes, but not what would happen for you. Similarly, no government guidance or Waitrose article can absolutely guarantee that potatoes (being starch) will release gradually for you. You would need to check with yourself. Speed of absorption comes down to individual gut biome, metabolism and genes. Which is what makes the whole business so complex and confusing!

New and waxy potatoes tend to have a reputation for being kinder on BG than older ‘floury’ ones, and baked/jacket potatoes tend to have a reputation be being more ‘concentrated’ carb, because lots of the water evaporates during baking.

As to whether “starchy food releases energy slowly/gradually”... well, that is the $64,000 question really. Which foods do release slowly and gradually for you? For me Weetabix and porridge are both much faster acting than they are supposed to be... but they might be fine for you. We are all different!

There’s no ‘one size fits all’... we all just have to make our own choices and fond our own way through the maze 🙂

 

[MissDaisy]

Thank you Madeline both for your reply and for understanding. I could chat for hours ( not to argue, but to fathom out diabetes ). I read today in Waitrose food magazine ; "complex carbs (wholemeal/quinoa/oats/lentils/etc ) are great for energy"
"low carbs in general do not support an active lifestyle"
"carbs are the body's preferred source of fuel - not only for energy, but for our brain, muscles, and major organs to function properly"
"When the carbs contain lots of fibre and fat it reduces the GI leading to a steadier release of energy and stops the BS levels seesawing"
"starchy food release energy slowly/gradually" - so why can't I eat potatoes?
This will surprise our friend Drummer who says how he has progressed on low carbs and maintained good energy levels.
Without taking meter readings, what affect should I be feeling ? How will I know I have too much BS?
Do we agree exercise must be relative to age. If so, we old people stand less chance to burn off the excess sugar which hinders progress.
Apart from my last three questions, Madeline, I think you will say re-read your last post, but I would still be be interested on your Waitrose response.
Thanks again Madeline and everyone for listening - just trying to find out in my own way - not in any way argumentative.

Hi Marmite,

You still have some carb intake doing Low Carb diet as it isn’t no carb diet. I suppose it all comes down to whether you personally decide to do based on the Zoom & Waitrose magazine OR if you do low carb based on research & Diabetics experiences here on the forum.

Here’s a research article to read albeit USA study

Quote - Reducing CHO intake with an LCD is effective in reducing body weight and, in patients with type 2 diabetes, improving glycemic control, with a stronger effect with a very low carb diet (KD).

Low-Carb and Ketogenic Diets in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes - PMC

Low-carb and ketogenic diets are popular among clinicians and patients, but the appropriateness of reducing carbohydrates intake in obese patients and in patients with diabetes is still debated. Studies in the literature are indeed controversial, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I mentioned low carb to my GP who is Diabetes specialist and she confirmed low carb. If you want to check with your health care professionals this will help you decide what diet you think is best for you!

All the best

MissDaisy 🙂

 

[Becka]

I read today in Waitrose food magazine…

Imagine that you just read an article that said that going for a walk promotes good physical health and is something anyone can do no matter their age.

A pretty uncontroversial claim that no one would disagree with.

Except, now imagine you suffered a spinal injury or a genetic abnormality at birth so have no feeling below the waist and are use a wheelchair.

That does make the claim about walking less true for the majority of people with a healthy and fully functioning body. But for those whose body does not work in that way it is irrelevant, and instead they need to find alternative ways that better suit their abilities. Such as using a manual wheelchair and upper body exercise.

Because you cannot see what is happening inside your body it is easy not to see diabetes as a disability. Because the impact of being diabetic, at least type 2, may seem trivial compared to being unable to walk it is easy not to see it as a disability. But having diabetes means there is something that the body should be able to do but cannot.

For most people their bodies can both produce enough insulin and are sensitive enough to use it. If you are diabetic it means your body is unable to do one, or both, of those things.

Some people use a wheelchair for mobility, to work around their body being unable to walk independently. And diabetics can use their diet to work around their body being unable to manage glucose levels in their system. The cells or pancreas in a diabetic's body do not care what the Waitrose magazine has to say any more than the legs of Gordon Reid care what is claimed in a tennis magazine.

Descriptions of how a healthy body operates do not necessarily apply to a disabled one. You need to start thinking of it in those terms. You need to read things in the appropriate context, that telling diabetics they need carbohydrates for energy is like telling people with a paralysis they need to walk to move around.

What is good and true advice for most people, is not good advice for everyone.