Sugars
Options
Replies
-
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.
Yeah, my mom is diabetic, so I definitely understand. I'm mostly concerned with weight loss to mitigate potential risks. I also have reactive hypoglycemia, but my body also seems to respond strangely to carbs. What ends up working for me is semi-low carb (not really all that low), and I focus on getting proteins and fat early in the day and consume most of my carbs at night.
Luckily, it was easy for me to find what works because I had a direct symptom; I'd get shaky if I wasn't doing something my body liked. If you're just trying to prevent diabetes, there is no clear indicator if what you're doing is working or not. You may want to somewhat reduce carbs or sugars, but there is no need to exclude them entirely if you're able to incorporate them into your diet in moderation. I'd also recommend consistent annual physicals and/or bloodwork to make sure your A1C is at an appropriate level.
I'm on a very low carb diet right now for weight loss, but when I hit goal in a couple of months, I'm eager to try lower carb as well.
I'm thinking meals such as a small steak with sweet potato, spinach, and tomatoes might be more balanced than just a hunk of steak. And then I can stop taking multivitamins and get all my nutrients from food, which I enjoy doing because when I do that I have much more energy. I'm just unfortunately hungrier than I need to be. And for sugar, I'd be happy enough to have berries and fruit. I know not to get it from cookies and cake because then I get cravings I don't want to deal with. My entire family also has a big old rotten sweet tooth!
You get shaky when you eat the wrong things, I get cranky and sleepy. I don't think either are good signs!0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.
Well, since genetics is the top listed factor for development of diabetes and it runs in your family, if I were you, I'd try to lessen the ones I could like low activity levels and being overweight, but also understand that it isn't worth driving myself crazy over because it might be out of my control.
Basically, do whatever you think you need to do for your own sanity.
The only thing out of my control unless I move to a less polluted area is the possibility that pollutants affect our insulin resistance (there is some new research suggesting it might). Learning about food is fun for me. I just wish I had a better education background to understand more.0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.
Yeah, my mom is diabetic, so I definitely understand. I'm mostly concerned with weight loss to mitigate potential risks. I also have reactive hypoglycemia, but my body also seems to respond strangely to carbs. What ends up working for me is semi-low carb (not really all that low), and I focus on getting proteins and fat early in the day and consume most of my carbs at night.
Luckily, it was easy for me to find what works because I had a direct symptom; I'd get shaky if I wasn't doing something my body liked. If you're just trying to prevent diabetes, there is no clear indicator if what you're doing is working or not. You may want to somewhat reduce carbs or sugars, but there is no need to exclude them entirely if you're able to incorporate them into your diet in moderation. I'd also recommend consistent annual physicals and/or bloodwork to make sure your A1C is at an appropriate level.
I'm on a very low carb diet right now for weight loss, but when I hit goal in a couple of months, I'm eager to try lower carb as well.
I'm thinking meals such as a small steak with sweet potato, spinach, and tomatoes might be more balanced than just a hunk of steak. And then I can stop taking multivitamins and get all my nutrients from food, which I enjoy doing because when I do that I have much more energy. I'm just unfortunately hungrier than I need to be. And for sugar, I'd be happy enough to have berries and fruit. I know not to get it from cookies and cake because then I get cravings I don't want to deal with. My entire family also has a big old rotten sweet tooth!
You get shaky when you eat the wrong things, I get cranky and sleepy. I don't think either are good signs!
Oh trust me, I get cranky too. I tried low carb, and it actually caused the problem to get worse, and after lots of doctors visits I couldn't figure it out. There were about 2 months that I'm shocked my boyfriend didn't leave me because I was constantly a raging *kitten*. Strangely upping my carbs seemed to solve my problems.
And yes, if you are low enough carb now that you can't enjoy some spinach and tomatoes, definitely look at incorporating those when you shift to maintenance (again, I don't see any harm with eating them now, but you've seemed to find what is working for you).0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.
Well, since genetics is the top listed factor for development of diabetes and it runs in your family, if I were you, I'd try to lessen the ones I could like low activity levels and being overweight, but also understand that it isn't worth driving myself crazy over because it might be out of my control.
Basically, do whatever you think you need to do for your own sanity.
The only thing out of my control unless I move to a less polluted area is the possibility that pollutants affect our insulin resistance (there is some new research suggesting it might). Learning about food is fun for me. I just wish I had a better education background to understand more.
And if you really hate yourself you could audit/take some college courses for funsies. You might be interested in biology and biochemistry, but neither of those are the most easy class to understand. (And of course, that assumes you have money and lying around you don't know what to do with.)0 -
I have been doing good and staying under my daily calorie goal but often my sugars are too high I'm thinking maybe I need to skip that one snack at night especially because I have just been diagnosed with diabetes.
Hi- You have to remember that carbs and sugars are almost synonymous to each other. Carbs break down into sugar. I have taken out a majority of sugar and carbs in my diet. However, there are carbs in vegetables - they are a different kind of carb. In Myfitness pal there is a button that says "nutrition" it will give you a break down of fat, carb, and protein. I aim for 65% at fat (good fats) between 10-15% for carbs, and the rest protein. I do not count any calories and I only use MFP to look at that nutrition portion to make sure I am in my "pie" I have lost 30+ lbs to date and I am under doctor's supervision. I would look to your nutritionist to figure out what combo of foods you can do. i do little dairy, little to no fruit since it breaks down to sugar, little to no carbs allowing those in vegetables and eat good lean proteins. If you find your self hungry - Isopure protein is a great after workout meal and meal replacement.
-
0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.
Yeah, my mom is diabetic, so I definitely understand. I'm mostly concerned with weight loss to mitigate potential risks. I also have reactive hypoglycemia, but my body also seems to respond strangely to carbs. What ends up working for me is semi-low carb (not really all that low), and I focus on getting proteins and fat early in the day and consume most of my carbs at night.
Luckily, it was easy for me to find what works because I had a direct symptom; I'd get shaky if I wasn't doing something my body liked. If you're just trying to prevent diabetes, there is no clear indicator if what you're doing is working or not. You may want to somewhat reduce carbs or sugars, but there is no need to exclude them entirely if you're able to incorporate them into your diet in moderation. I'd also recommend consistent annual physicals and/or bloodwork to make sure your A1C is at an appropriate level.
I'm on a very low carb diet right now for weight loss, but when I hit goal in a couple of months, I'm eager to try lower carb as well.
I'm thinking meals such as a small steak with sweet potato, spinach, and tomatoes might be more balanced than just a hunk of steak. And then I can stop taking multivitamins and get all my nutrients from food, which I enjoy doing because when I do that I have much more energy. I'm just unfortunately hungrier than I need to be. And for sugar, I'd be happy enough to have berries and fruit. I know not to get it from cookies and cake because then I get cravings I don't want to deal with. My entire family also has a big old rotten sweet tooth!
You get shaky when you eat the wrong things, I get cranky and sleepy. I don't think either are good signs!
Oh trust me, I get cranky too. I tried low carb, and it actually caused the problem to get worse, and after lots of doctors visits I couldn't figure it out. There were about 2 months that I'm shocked my boyfriend didn't leave me because I was constantly a raging *kitten*. Strangely upping my carbs seemed to solve my problems.
And yes, if you are low enough carb now that you can't enjoy some spinach and tomatoes, definitely look at incorporating those when you shift to maintenance (again, I don't see any harm with eating them now, but you've seemed to find what is working for you).
It's odd with low carb for me, I think it makes me far happier and less anxious, but I'm actually happiest and have the most energy in light ketosis. Right now I'm in heavy ketosis and I'm trying to figure out what to add to put me in the light range all the time (I can't wait for tomatoes to be in season again, the hothouse ones are just so bleh).
Glad you've found what works for you!0 -
Bad diet and lack of exercise and of course being over weight most definitely contributes to getting Type 2 Diabetes.
The overweight does. The bad diet and lack of exercise does not directly lead to diabetes. It CAN lead to excess weight, which is a big risk factor, but a bad diet and lack of exercise alone will not cause one to become diabetic.
Those who develop diabetes have two or more of the risk factors. The most common (in order) are:- Genetics
- Obesity
- Age (the pancreas ages just like the rest of us and may become inefficient)
- Long Term use of some medications (especially statins and antidepressants)
- If your mother had gestational diabetes when carrying you
- Some cancers, and some cancer treatments especially when you were a child
If diabetes runs in your family and you are overweight, you are pretty much screwed, even more as you get older.
You maybe have a predisposition to be "screwed" but you dont have to think that this is the only result. You can make a difference and you can change your outcome.0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.
Well, since genetics is the top listed factor for development of diabetes and it runs in your family, if I were you, I'd try to lessen the ones I could like low activity levels and being overweight, but also understand that it isn't worth driving myself crazy over because it might be out of my control.
Basically, do whatever you think you need to do for your own sanity.
The only thing out of my control unless I move to a less polluted area is the possibility that pollutants affect our insulin resistance (there is some new research suggesting it might). Learning about food is fun for me. I just wish I had a better education background to understand more.
And if you really hate yourself you could audit/take some college courses for funsies. You might be interested in biology and biochemistry, but neither of those are the most easy class to understand. (And of course, that assumes you have money and lying around you don't know what to do with.)
I wish I had the money. I can't even do free course auditing because my car is on its last legs (wheels?) poor thing. And my city has no public transportation worth speaking of. I would love to audit some courses, I'm so mad at myself that I didn't push through the maths and go into the sciences.0 -
Can someone explain, in simple terms, the science/probability of risk factors for me? Like, seriously, how many people engaging in risk factor behavior/fitting into risk factor categories DON'T get a condition vs. those who do? Are they more correlative or causative in nature?0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »Can someone explain, in simple terms, the science/probability of risk factors for me? Like, seriously, how many people engaging in risk factor behavior/fitting into risk factor categories DON'T get a condition vs. those who do? Are they more correlative or causative in nature?
Lower inflammation. Avoid foods that cause Elevated C Reactive Protein.
Someone kick my tail and educate me if I read this abstract wrong!
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/53/3/693.short
Quote: Abstract
We conducted a prospective, nested, case-control study of inflammatory markers as predictors of type 2 diabetes among 32,826 women who provided blood samples in 1989 through 1990 in the Nurses’ Health Study. Among women free of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or cancer at baseline, 737 had developed diabetes by 2000. Control women (n = 785) were selected matched on age, fasting status, race, and BMI for cases in the top BMI decile. Baseline levels of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α receptor 2, interleukin (IL)-6, and C-reactive protein (CRP) were significantly higher among case than control subjects (all P ≤ 0.001). After adjusting for BMI and other lifestyle factors, all three biomarkers significantly predicted diabetes risk; the odds ratios (ORs) comparing extreme quintiles were 1.64 (95% CI 1.10–2.45) for TNF-αR2, 1.91 (1.27–2.86) for IL-6, and 4.36 (2.80–6.80) for CRP (P for trend <0.001 for all biomarkers). In a multivariate model simultaneously including the three biomarkers, only CRP levels were significantly associated with risk of diabetes (OR comparing extreme quintiles of CRP = 3.99, P for trend <0.001). These data support the role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes. Elevated CRP levels are a strong independent predictor of type 2 diabetes and may mediate associations of TNF-αR2 and IL-6 with type 2 diabetes.
0 -
That's not what I meant, though. I meant that technically, in any study, what does a risk factor mean? Does it just mean you have a slightly higher probability of someone that doesn't do xyz of getting something? Is that definite or maybe? Is the link between a risk factor and the end thing proven as causative or is it correlative. I'm not just talking diabetes, I'm talking anything.
Bear in mind, I think I know where I'm going with this, but I want to ask for more learned opinions to form up my own thinking first.0 -
Here's some food for thought: Wanna know how they treated diabetic patients prior to the discovery of a synthetic injectable insulin?
Starvation.
Yeah. Starvation. And people died. Doctors found that if they starved people their glucose levels normalized.-1 -
neck2navel wrote: »Here's some food for thought: Wanna know how they treated diabetic patients prior to the discovery of a synthetic injectable insulin?
Starvation.
Yeah. Starvation. And people died. Doctors found that if they starved people their glucose levels normalized.
Actually they just did it again in a small study and no one died. I'm sure it wasn't fun for them and they had doctor's supervision.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jun/24/low-calorie-diet-hope-cure-diabetes0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »neck2navel wrote: »Here's some food for thought: Wanna know how they treated diabetic patients prior to the discovery of a synthetic injectable insulin?
Starvation.
Yeah. Starvation. And people died. Doctors found that if they starved people their glucose levels normalized.
Actually they just did it again in a small study and no one died. I'm sure it wasn't fun for them and they had doctor's supervision.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jun/24/low-calorie-diet-hope-cure-diabetes
Study from 2011 obviously went nowhere. Too bad.
Do you know of refuting followups or is it just not being implemented widely for some other reason? I could see compliance being very difficult. You're right though, 2011 isn't that recent.
0 -
neck2navel wrote: »Here's some food for thought: Wanna know how they treated diabetic patients prior to the discovery of a synthetic injectable insulin?
Starvation.
Yeah. Starvation. And people died. Doctors found that if they starved people their glucose levels normalized.
Ketogenic diets were also used, with better results. Type one diabetes was a death sentence before Banting did his animal studies.0 -
neck2navel wrote: »Here's some food for thought: Wanna know how they treated diabetic patients prior to the discovery of a synthetic injectable insulin?
Starvation.
Yeah. Starvation. And people died. Doctors found that if they starved people their glucose levels normalized.
Ketogenic diets were also used, with better results. Type one diabetes was a death sentence before Banting did his animal studies.
I'm maybe on the right track then.
I also found some that seemed to say saturated fat could cause type 2 diabetes, but then I found this just now (it's 2001 though I'll have to look for more recent studies as well):
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/73/6/1019.short
Conclusions: These data suggest that total fat and saturated and monounsaturated fatty acid intakes are not associated with risk of type 2 diabetes in women, but that trans fatty acids increase and polyunsaturated fatty acids reduce risk. Substituting nonhydrogenated polyunsaturated fatty acids for trans fatty acids would likely reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes substantially.0 -
Why does the user Prettykitty have bars over the default pic?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions