On the topic of Sugar....
Replies
-
Upstream someone was disturbed about the government and the ADA communication about sugar. I'm not sure what is disturbing.
Diabetes.org speaks about sugar in context with all carbs here, and I think it is a balanced approach.
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/understanding-carbohydrates/sugar-and-desserts.html
Again, when eating for diabetes control I did not worry about my fruit intake and I averaged at least two servings a day.
That was me. I believe these organisations should mention going low carb as a possible treatment plan since moderate carbs don't always work. I know some people do fine treating IR with moderate carbs, but not everyone does, whereas most people with IR do better on a low carb diet
I'm prediabetic and eat a very low carb ketogenic diet to treat my insulin resistance. I ate fewer than 20g of carbs for three months and my blood glucose was usually normal. For the last month I increased my calories to maintenance level and my carbs too. I was eating under 50g of carbs per day but usually over 30g. Those carbs came from snap peas, celery, carrots, coconut and nuts, and a bit more veggie throughout my day. It wasn't much. No carbage beyond a sugar free crustless cheese cake I made, and my prediabetic fasting blood glucose was back. Consistently. Darn it.
I have tightened up my carb limit again and BG is back to normal levels. THE ADA and CDA should be telling people about a low carb diet because some of us need it... At least provide it as option B! KWIM?
I had to go against my endocrinologist's wishes in order to normalize my blood glucose. I think that I should have at least been told about a low carb option. If I was the type of person who didn't take charge of my own health, my insulin resistance would probably still be uncontrolled.
For most people simply using the MACRO counter on this site is how they determine what MACRO was at a certain gram per day. What or how did you ascertain your gram intake? I thought I read where you were not being accurate with your calories so how would you really know how many carbs you were ingesting? So, if you can't or aren't accurate with this information how does it make the rest of your conclusion possible?
0 -
Do you think this is the only reason that diabetics on pharmaceuticals are told they must eat carbs? I have yet to figure out any other reason that a person who doesn't digest carbs well is told to eat carbs. Is it strictly to avoid a bad result from drugs dropping the blood sugar too low?0 -
Do you think this is the only reason that diabetics on pharmaceuticals are told they must eat carbs? I have yet to figure out any other reason that a person who doesn't digest carbs well is told to eat carbs. Is it strictly to avoid a bad result from drugs dropping the blood sugar too low?
I think some of the worry is that people won't stick with it. Some see it as depravation and not maintainable. I think doctors believe that it is easier to manage the problem with steady meds rather than have people eat LCHF / low sugar for a few days than binge on hundreds of grams of carbs. Apparently that carb binge is expected.
0 -
Do you think this is the only reason that diabetics on pharmaceuticals are told they must eat carbs? I have yet to figure out any other reason that a person who doesn't digest carbs well is told to eat carbs. Is it strictly to avoid a bad result from drugs dropping the blood sugar too low?
I think some of the worry is that people won't stick with it. Some see it as depravation and not maintainable. I think doctors believe that it is easier to manage the problem with steady meds rather than have people eat LCHF / low sugar for a few days than binge on hundreds of grams of carbs. Apparently that carb binge is expected.
Perhaps expected because it is statistically far more likely than consistent adherence?
I don't blame doctors at all for that approach. They're generally in the business of doing what they need to do to keep their patients alive. It's just good business.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »
Do you think this is the only reason that diabetics on pharmaceuticals are told they must eat carbs? I have yet to figure out any other reason that a person who doesn't digest carbs well is told to eat carbs. Is it strictly to avoid a bad result from drugs dropping the blood sugar too low?
I think some of the worry is that people won't stick with it. Some see it as depravation and not maintainable. I think doctors believe that it is easier to manage the problem with steady meds rather than have people eat LCHF / low sugar for a few days than binge on hundreds of grams of carbs. Apparently that carb binge is expected.
Perhaps expected because it is statistically far more likely than consistent adherence?
I don't blame doctors at all for that approach. They're generally in the business of doing what they need to do to keep their patients alive. It's just good business.
True, but from a patient perspective, being kept functional enough to keep shoveling money to pharmaceutical companies isn't really a valid treatment goal. Real health is of primary importance.0 -
Realistic expectations are of primary importance. Telling patients they can't eat carbs, or have to keep them at a level they may see as unrealistically low, sets many people up for failure. Working with patients to help them find a working diet of moderation that can lead to long-term success, with the help of pharmaceuticals if necessary, is a very realistic goal. I know personally many people who were able to completely eliminate prediabetic numbers by eating in moderation and using pharmaceuticals; when the numbers corrected, the pharmaceuticals were no longer needed. The same thing happened for Type II diabetics - some were able to correct their condition, and some were able to control it.0
-
Realistic expectations are of primary importance. Telling patients they can't eat carbs, or have to keep them at a level they may see as unrealistically low, sets many people up for failure. Working with patients to help them find a working diet of moderation that can lead to long-term success, with the help of pharmaceuticals if necessary, is a very realistic goal. I know personally many people who were able to completely eliminate prediabetic numbers by eating in moderation and using pharmaceuticals; when the numbers corrected, the pharmaceuticals were no longer needed. The same thing happened for Type II diabetics - some were able to correct their condition, and some were able to control it.
The bolded is true. I do wish that they would give alernatives though. Moderating sugars didn't work for me. My BG creeps up if I get out of ketosis. I would have appreciated being told about a low carb option instead of having to find my own way to successfully treat myself. For some it is the only choice, and for many lkie me, it isn't hard to adhere to. I think most patients can handle having options. If we are able to go with the plan that works best for us, I would guess it would increase it's chances of success.0 -
When I lost significant weight and was still on Metformin I started to experience low blood sugar moments. The risk is fainting. Left untreated it can descend in to delirium, coma, and death. I don't like death....yet. The instant cure is carbohydrate. If the patient is incoherent emergency staff can inject glucose on the spot. The recovery is near instantaneous. I witnessed such a cure of my in-laws.
So I stand by my statement. A diabetic absolutely needs carbs to deal with low blood sugar. Sometimes nothing else will do.0 -
I still disagree. Reactive hypoglycaemia only is a problem if one is dependent on carbs for fuel.
My BG was 3.2 (about 58) yesterday. Since I am in ketosis, I barely even noticed. It wasn't a concern for me even though i am prediabetic. I was just hungry. It sorted itself out within a few hours, during which time I coached basketball and played/coached soccer with the little guys and ate a burger patty. No need for me to inject glucose because I am not carb dependent. My brain was still getting fuel.
0 -
Have you ever watched the video about sugar on YouTube by Dr. Robert Lustig? It's very eye opening and educational. The sugar in fruit is just fine because it's negated by fiber. The added sugar in soda or sugary cereal on the other hand, is not.0
-
Do you think this is the only reason that diabetics on pharmaceuticals are told they must eat carbs? I have yet to figure out any other reason that a person who doesn't digest carbs well is told to eat carbs. Is it strictly to avoid a bad result from drugs dropping the blood sugar too low?
I don't think I would describe diabetics as having issues digesting carbs.0 -
SeptemberFeyre wrote: »Have you ever watched the video about sugar on YouTube by Dr. Robert Lustig? It's very eye opening and educational. The sugar in fruit is just fine because it's negated by fiber. The added sugar in soda or sugary cereal on the other hand, is not.
So drinking a can of Coke would be perfectly fine with just a spoonful of psyllum husk dropped in it?
Lustig has said a lot of things about sugar on YouTube, and most of it is quackery.
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/0 -
I still disagree. Reactive hypoglycaemia only is a problem if one is dependent on carbs for fuel.
My BG was 3.2 (about 58) yesterday. Since I am in ketosis, I barely even noticed. It wasn't a concern for me even though i am prediabetic. I was just hungry. It sorted itself out within a few hours, during which time I coached basketball and played/coached soccer with the little guys and ate a burger patty. No need for me to inject glucose because I am not carb dependent. My brain was still getting fuel.
You keep using the term reactive hypoglycemia. You do realize that is a disease entirely separate from diabetes, right?0 -
I still disagree. Reactive hypoglycaemia only is a problem if one is dependent on carbs for fuel.
My BG was 3.2 (about 58) yesterday. Since I am in ketosis, I barely even noticed. It wasn't a concern for me even though i am prediabetic. I was just hungry. It sorted itself out within a few hours, during which time I coached basketball and played/coached soccer with the little guys and ate a burger patty. No need for me to inject glucose because I am not carb dependent. My brain was still getting fuel.
You keep using the term reactive hypoglycemia. You do realize that is a disease entirely separate from diabetes, right?
indeed it is, but the hypothesises of dangerously low blood sugar on Type 2 diabetes should only arise from excessive medication or coexistent reactive hypoglycaemia.0 -
Do you think this is the only reason that diabetics on pharmaceuticals are told they must eat carbs? I have yet to figure out any other reason that a person who doesn't digest carbs well is told to eat carbs. Is it strictly to avoid a bad result from drugs dropping the blood sugar too low?
No, the primary reason is the fear of fat. You can't go asking them to reduce carbs as they'll eat more of the evil fat.
Another angle is the pink and fluffy approach of "eating normally despite your diabetes" - don't worry love, just take this pill, that pill, this injection, etc and you can carry on eating your usual diet.
But once you've stuck someone with a basal insulin dose regime you need to fend it off with carbs or they'll be hypoglycemic.0 -
Do you think this is the only reason that diabetics on pharmaceuticals are told they must eat carbs? I have yet to figure out any other reason that a person who doesn't digest carbs well is told to eat carbs. Is it strictly to avoid a bad result from drugs dropping the blood sugar too low?
No, the primary reason is the fear of fat. You can't go asking them to reduce carbs as they'll eat more of the evil fat.
Another angle is the pink and fluffy approach of "eating normally despite your diabetes" - don't worry love, just take this pill, that pill, this injection, etc and you can carry on eating your usual diet.
But once you've stuck someone with a basal insulin dose regime you need to fend it off with carbs or they'll be hypoglycemic.
Thanks, forgot about how the devil fat figured into the equation.
I have a senior parent who is deathly afraid of hypo's as she lives alone and pretty much stuck in a cycle of managing her drugs with carb dosage. It isn't really working well.0 -
Realistic expectations are of primary importance. Telling patients they can't eat carbs, or have to keep them at a level they may see as unrealistically low, sets many people up for failure. Working with patients to help them find a working diet of moderation that can lead to long-term success, with the help of pharmaceuticals if necessary, is a very realistic goal. I know personally many people who were able to completely eliminate prediabetic numbers by eating in moderation and using pharmaceuticals; when the numbers corrected, the pharmaceuticals were no longer needed. The same thing happened for Type II diabetics - some were able to correct their condition, and some were able to control it.
The bolded is true. I do wish that they would give alernatives though. Moderating sugars didn't work for me. My BG creeps up if I get out of ketosis. I would have appreciated being told about a low carb option instead of having to find my own way to successfully treat myself. For some it is the only choice, and for many lkie me, it isn't hard to adhere to. I think most patients can handle having options. If we are able to go with the plan that works best for us, I would guess it would increase it's chances of success.
The evidence is that having a super low carb diet makes you IR, so that when you reintroduce carbs your body can't handle it. You'd have to have more carbs for a while to adjust to know how you do. So claiming you can't deal with 50 g carbs or not being in ketosis when no natural human diets result in ketosis is IMO irresponsible. Nice to tell people eating vegetables is unhealthy, though.0 -
It is often a sign of diabetes.I still disagree. Reactive hypoglycaemia only is a problem if one is dependent on carbs for fuel.
My BG was 3.2 (about 58) yesterday. Since I am in ketosis, I barely even noticed. It wasn't a concern for me even though i am prediabetic. I was just hungry. It sorted itself out within a few hours, during which time I coached basketball and played/coached soccer with the little guys and ate a burger patty. No need for me to inject glucose because I am not carb dependent. My brain was still getting fuel.
You keep using the term reactive hypoglycemia. You do realize that is a disease entirely separate from diabetes, right?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Realistic expectations are of primary importance. Telling patients they can't eat carbs, or have to keep them at a level they may see as unrealistically low, sets many people up for failure. Working with patients to help them find a working diet of moderation that can lead to long-term success, with the help of pharmaceuticals if necessary, is a very realistic goal. I know personally many people who were able to completely eliminate prediabetic numbers by eating in moderation and using pharmaceuticals; when the numbers corrected, the pharmaceuticals were no longer needed. The same thing happened for Type II diabetics - some were able to correct their condition, and some were able to control it.
The bolded is true. I do wish that they would give alernatives though. Moderating sugars didn't work for me. My BG creeps up if I get out of ketosis. I would have appreciated being told about a low carb option instead of having to find my own way to successfully treat myself. For some it is the only choice, and for many lkie me, it isn't hard to adhere to. I think most patients can handle having options. If we are able to go with the plan that works best for us, I would guess it would increase it's chances of success.
The evidence is that having a super low carb diet makes you IR, so that when you reintroduce carbs your body can't handle it. You'd have to have more carbs for a while to adjust to know how you do. So claiming you can't deal with 50 g carbs or not being in ketosis when no natural human diets result in ketosis is IMO irresponsible. Nice to tell people eating vegetables is unhealthy, though.
Irresponsible? Are you kidding? I think it was irresponsible of my doctor to tell me to eat more carbs and leaner meats when my IR came up.
I never told anyone that eating vegetables is unhealthy. That was was your twist on my words. Not mine.
I eat vegetables. As many as I can before my BG gets elevated. Last night for dinner I had turkey, a carrot and turnip casserole, green beans with bacon, and Caesar salad. No vegetables? Again you must be joking.
Too many people imply that a ketogenic diet consists of no vegetables. That's irresponsible to misinform people like that. A no vegetable diet is carnivorous, not ketogenic.0 -
Yes, I think telling people vegetables aren't necessary or are bad for you is extremely irresponsible and ridiculous.
Eating under 30 g carbs would cause one to limit vegetables, as was stated in your post, and in all the posts about carbs not being needed and the idiocy about carnivorous diets being healthier. That's simply not true.0 -
I protest the description of "excessive pharmaceuticals". In the absence of naturally supplied insulin, a diabetic may inject insulin to control blood sugar. It's a balancing act that the body normally takes care of on its own.
Trouble happens both when sugar is too high and too low. Taking too much insulin to cover the carbs ingested may be said to be "excessive pharmaceuticals" but it also may be said, "not enough carbs".
Another problem with low blood sugar is that judgement is impaired. If it drops too low it becomes impossible for the person to recover on their own. Which is why diabetics and hypoglycemics carry an emergency supply of sugar with them.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Eating under 30 g carbs would cause one to limit vegetables, as was stated in your post, and in all the posts about carbs not being needed and the idiocy about carnivorous diets being healthier. That's simply not true.
You can eat a pound a day of vegetables for 30g of carbs or less, that's 5 WHO portions. Seems adequate to me.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, I think telling people vegetables aren't necessary or are bad for you is extremely irresponsible and ridiculous.
Eating under 30 g carbs would cause one to limit vegetables, as was stated in your post, and in all the posts about carbs not being needed and the idiocy about carnivorous diets being healthier. That's simply not true.
It is a fact that there is no minimum level of carbs required for a life. That's proven. Not any people test it though, myself included.
I didn't say a carnivorous diet is healthier.0 -
I protest the description of "excessive pharmaceuticals". In the absence of naturally supplied insulin, a diabetic may inject insulin to control blood sugar. It's a balancing act that the body normally takes care of on its own.
Trouble happens both when sugar is too high and too low. Taking too much insulin to cover the carbs ingested may be said to be "excessive pharmaceuticals" but it also may be said, "not enough carbs".
It would be clearer perhaps if we made it clear which type of diabetes was being discussed.
In Type 1 diabetes then yes the carbs and insulin have to be matched to control blood sugar and this task appears to be easier when small quantities of both are involved.0 -
Then why is the treatment for critically low blood sugar is a direct injection of glucose, and the home treatment to get sugar in to the patient as fast as you can?
Protein won't cut it. It's too slow-acting.
Carbs can be critical for life.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, I think telling people vegetables aren't necessary or are bad for you is extremely irresponsible and ridiculous.
Eating under 30 g carbs would cause one to limit vegetables, as was stated in your post, and in all the posts about carbs not being needed and the idiocy about carnivorous diets being healthier. That's simply not true.
It is a fact that there is no minimum level of carbs required for a life. That's proven. Not any people test it though, myself included.
I didn't say a carnivorous diet is healthier.
Saying no carbs are necessary implies they aren't helpful for micros, which is false. A low carb diet can be quite healthy, but the fact is that no traditional long lived cultures follow low carb/keto diets and the keto fanatics here tend to promote silly things like unlimited sat fat, carnivorous diets, and limiting vegetables and fruit.
Fine if they claim that's a fun way to lose weight (although I don't agree), but not cool if they claim that's a healthier diet.0 -
yes, if the patient is hypoglycemic a few grams of glucose is the correct action.
So this is relevant to sick people and out of control diabetics using insulin or other drugs. As the IoM says the amount of carbohydrate intake compatible with life is apparently zero, but if your broken a bit of injected or ingested carbohydrate support can fix it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Eating under 30 g carbs would cause one to limit vegetables, as was stated in your post, and in all the posts about carbs not being needed and the idiocy about carnivorous diets being healthier. That's simply not true.
You can eat a pound a day of vegetables for 30g of carbs or less, that's 5 WHO portions. Seems adequate to me.
Depends on the vegetables. For example, a lb of brussels sprouts is over 40 g carbs. Also there's nothing wrong with eating more than 5 servings of veg or some fruit (or whole grains or whatever). It's ridiculous -- as I said before -- to suggest that it's worrisome to eat too many vegetables. I'm sick of the low carb anti veg evangelism here.0 -
tasharosesmith wrote: »BreakOnThru wrote: »For what it's worth, a friend of mine who was recently on Weight Watchers for the second time told me they now allow as much fruit as a person wants; it doesn't count toward your daily points. So it seems like they've come around to the fact that fruit is good, and as long as you're eating more of it and avoiding brownies and Snickers bars, you're doing all right.
There is nothing wrong with brownies and snicker bars. While fruit has more fiber and different nutrients than the snickers and brownies, none of these foods are good or bad, they are just foods. Everything in moderation.
Except that one snickers bar has 47g of sugar and 488 calories versus an apple with 10g sugar and 52 calories, if you're wanting to lose weight then fresh nutritious fruit wins over chocolate bars every time...but I do agree everything in moderation
Nobody disputes that the candy bar has more sugar than other foods. A person who is moderating does not have to eat the entire candy bar.
I can eat half portions of many things, but a Snickers bar is not one of them.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions