On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:43:07 +0000, Martin Thompson
<
[email protected]> posted:
>22:31:14 Fri, 26 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Moosh
at
> "Moosh
" <
[email protected]> writes:
>>On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:02:11 +0000, Martin Thompson
>><
[email protected]> posted:
>>
>>>11:24:54 Mon, 22 Mar 2004sci.med.nutrition Moosh
at
>>> "Moosh
" <
[email protected]> writes:
>>>>On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:02:34 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
>>>><
[email protected]> posted:
>>>>
>>>>>> >So eating the amount of cauliflower with the same
>>>>>> >energy level as whole-grain bread, you will get 5x
>>>>>> >more fiber, 2.5x more calcium, 3x more magnesium,
>>>>>> >1500x more vitamin C, 7x more B6, etc...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And cauliflower is "deficient" (according to you)
>>>>>> when compared with a fibre-containing micronutrient
>>>>>> capsule? What is your point?
>>>>>
>>>>>My point is that I want to lower / maintaing my weight,
>>>>>and I want to feel not hungry after eating a meal.
>>>>
>>>>Well you have to get a certain amount of energy per day
>>>>(<2000cal?)
>>>>
>>>>For satiety, potatoes are the go. See:
http://www.diabe-
>>>>tesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hmm... the complete opposite of what I find in myself.
>>>But then, I am a diabetic. If I eat such foods as bread,
>>>rice, potatoes and so on, my glucose levels go too high,
>>>then they come plummeting down too fast and I feel hungry
>>>again. The chart is not to be advised for people like me.
>>>And as was pointed out, maybe fat have a metabolic
>>>problem with these foods, like I do (my weight is normal,
>>>now, though, but I am still diabetic).
>>
>>Type one or two? Of course this doesn't apply to you
>>personally. You are ill.
>>
>
>Type 2.
Thanks
>>>Such a study is an interesting thing, but I hope that
>>>nutritionists don't go advising all people how to eat
>>>based on that and not on their individual metabolic needs
>>>(which is how dieticians around here advise people -
>>>i.e., with no reference to individual circumstances).
>>
>>You mean that dietitions around your way don't take a
>>patient's diabetes into account? Hooley Dooley!
>>
>
>It seems to be normal, both in the UK and the USA at least,
>going by the comments and criticisms I see in
>alt.support.diabetes and alt.support.diabetes.uk, and
>indeed on various official web sites purporting to advise
>diabetics. For example:
>
>
http://www.diabetes-healthnet.ac.uk/leaflets/eating.htm
>
>The advice looks sensible until you study it a little more
>closely. Then it says:
>
><quote> Fill up on fibre and starchy (carbohydrate) foods
>
>Starchy foods include whole grain breakfast cereals,
>potatoes, rice, pasta, chapattis and whole grain bread.
>Make these foods the main part of every meal Add lentils,
>beans, split peas or broth mix to home-made soups and
>stews. </quote>
>
>"Make these foods the main part of every meal" indeed! And
>
><quote> Eat plenty of fruit and vegetables
>
>Aim to eat 2-3 servings of fruit each day Buy fresh fruit
>or fruit tinned in natural juice All fruit is good for you
>including bananas and small quantities of grapes or dried
>fruit Try to eat at least 2-3 servings of vegetables
>and/or salad every day Use fresh, frozen or tinned
>vegetables </quote>
>
>Almost any diet and exercise controlled diabetic trying to
>control their blood glucose by eating like this would fail.
>Then, they would end up on insulin, which would swiftly be
>converting many of these carbohydrates into fat... making
>the situation worse, unless they exercised an awful lot.
I'm staggered. I agree with you. I see what you mean. I
wonder if anyone has contacted them and asked by wht
authority they give such bad advice.
>The above site is completely typical. I have seen many such
>sites. Another example:
>
>
http://www.diabetes.org.uk/eatwell/food_diabetes/index.html
>
>This is the official site of the British Diabetic
>Association. It says,
>
><quote> The diet for people with diabetes is a balanced
>healthy diet, the same kind that is recommended for the
>rest of the population — low in fat, sugar and salt, with
>plenty of fruit and vegetables and meals based on starchy
>foods, such as bread, potatoes, cereals, pasta and rice.
>This section highlighted the issues you should consider
>when planning your meals. </quote>
>
>And so on.
>
>Certainly there are a small number of individuals who do
>give sensible advice - my first ever dietician many years
>ago told me to restrict my carbs to 20g per meal. But
>ever since then, I've been told to make around 60% of my
>diet carbs.
And they know you are type 2? That is fine advice for a type
one doing much exercise. If that's the case, I would go with
a good endocrinologist who is involved in research.
>Official National Health Service leaflets tell me the same
>(and tell me, for instance, that if I eat out, I should
>order extra portions of rice or pasta with my meals). Of
>course I ignore the lot. The stupidity of other people is
>something I have to resist if I want to keep my health.
>However, it is no wonder that other diabetics have real
>problems controlling their glucose levels: most people
>trust their medics implicitly.
That is staggering. Extra rice and pasta for a type 2? I
wonder what the rationale is. Or perhaps just pig ignorance.
>>>>>Anyway. For many people, esp. for people with metabolic
>>>>>syndrom, fat, esp. monounsaturated fat, is much safer
>>>>>source of energy - it does not rises tryglicerides,
>>>>>lowers LDL, rises HDL, does not causes insulin/BG
>>>>>swings, etc, etc... all these things are in fact
>>>>>related.
>>>>
>>>>I agree, but then I'm not really discussing nutrional
>>>>pathology. I'm into normal healthy nutrition. All
>>>>packaged fat should be avoided by overfed,
>>>>underexercised westerners. Like most food processing
>>>>(where practical) and all refining.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But... so-called normal healthy nutrition may be leading
>>>some people into these overeating problems, if they have
>>>the metabolism for it. Isn't that possible?
>>
>>No, eating too much and not doing regular exercise is what
>>causes weight gain. Eating a varied whoefood diet will not
>>"lead" you anywhere harmful. If you feel morbidly hungry
>>on a eucaloric diet, and excessively tired from doing
>>little exercise, get yourself medically checked out. You
>>are likely ill.
>>
>
>Quite so. I think, though, that the very earliest stages of
>diabetes are undetectable at present. People are blamed for
>overeating when, in many cases, there is a metabolic
>problem that is undiagnosed (and unknown, I strongly
>suspect).
The weight increase must still be from overeating. There is
NO other way. Metabolic syndrome is easily detected if there
is a will.
>>>>>Well, now I expect argument of not everybody having
>>>>>metabolic syndrome. You are certainly right, OTOH I
>>>>>believe that people without syndrome are rarely fat.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is an interesting idea and I have wondered about it
>>>myself. I certainly like to think that my own overeating
>>>was caused by something other than my conscious self...
>>
>>Poltergeists? Could you not control yourself? What do you
>>do if you
>>
>
>My neighbours? LOL. ;-)
OK, but you get my point, I hope. Not all urges have to be
satisfied. Of course giving up smoking and the like is
easier in some respects as you can quit completely. You
can't quit food completely.
>>>but such a self-serving idea needs to be treated with
>>>suspicion. Still, it could be true, too. My feeling about
>>>it, comparing how I felt with how it seemed to me that
>>>other people felt (a difficult judgement, I know), is
>>>that I felt more hunger than other people, and that that
>>>hunger was caused by some sort of metabolic problem (I
>>>know not what).
>>
>>Syndrome X comes to mind. Perhaps a glucose tolerance test
>>with an insulin assay might shed some light.
>>
>
>That is right. However, I was not diagnosed as having
>anything wrong,
>i.e., insulin resistant in my case, until a good 10 years
> after something did in fact feel wrong: I was gaining
> weight, losing energy, getting a bit depressed, losing
> motivation, getting migraines... could be it was *just*
> overeating and lack of exercise, but that isn't
> definite.
When you start spilling glucose in your urine, you tend to
lose weight.
>>>Eventually, a known metabolic problem emerged and I was
>>>diagnosed as insulin resistant, then diabetic.
>>
>>Aha. better late than never.
>>
>>>At this stage, eating too many carbohydrates (as advised)
>>
>>By whom? Change endocrinologists rapidly!
>>
>
>By just about everybody. It is the official advice in
>Britain and the USA.
I'm gobsmacked. We have here diabetes clinics in major
teaching hospitals. They are often headed by world-renowned
diabetologists (endocrinologists). Maybe we are just very
lucky in Australia.
>>>didn't make solving the problem any easier as the
>>>cravings they caused (and can still cause) were (and are)
>>>stronger than my willpower.
>>
>>I can understand this, but there are ways of making excess
>>foods unavailable to you other than at meal times.
>>
>
>Eventually I found that if I didn't eat when I felt hungry,
>I would get a migraine within about 30 minutes to an hour.
>I decided that eating and putting on some weight, while not
>ideal, was a lot better than frequent migraines. I noticed
>that constipation and diarrhoea often preceded the
>migraines as well. The doctor thought it could be irritable
>bowel syndrome (translation: didn't know).
>
>Eventually, a few years after diagnosis as insulin
>resistant, I found out that it was being caused by rapid
>swings up and down in my blood glucose levels. Nobody in
>the medical profession told me to watch out for that or
>discovered it, or gave me any useful information to help me
>try and figure it out or stop it. I was told that digestive
>upsets have no connection with migraines. That was wrong as
>I found some foods that caused the upset (potatoes in
>particular) causing my digestive system to seize up,
>causing my blood glucose levels to drop, causing (some of)
>the migraines.
>
>Frankly, I know more about my condition than they do,
>clearly. I've had it with them. After years of bad advice
>from numerous sources, I think I know where I stand.
Fair enough. I wonder however if your "migraines" were not
"hypoglycemia". (Hypos)
>>> I am only able to eat less since I learned about cutting
>>> carbohydrates down.
>>
>>Sounds perfectly reasonable for a type2 diabetic.
>>
>>>Thereafter, willpower is hardly needed and I have been
>>>able to control my weight properly for the first time.
>>>The nutritional advice given to diabetics simply stinks.
>>
>>See my comment about your endocrinologist above.
>>
>
>I haven't been assigned to one.
Anyway, I think I'm
>better off steering well clear of the medical profession as
>much as I can.
I understand that, but can you not sus out a good diabetes
endo in a large teaching hospital? Maybe our medical system
is very different to yours. What you describe in USA and UK
seem worse than third world from my perspective.
>>>My personal guess is that I don't lack willpower (people
>>>tell me I have lots), so I conclude that I must have been
>>>feeling more hungry.
>>
>>Well no and yes
>>
>
>I see these options:
>
>a) lack of willpower;
Or too much urge to resist?
>b) extra hunger;
Yep, same thing.
>c) both of the above;
Yep
>d) none of the above.
Certainly in some form.
>>>>Not sure what the exact numbers are, but I read
>>>>somewhere that 90% of DM2 sufferers were obese. But
>>>>there are a considerable proportion of fatties that are
>>>>neither syndrome X nor DM2.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I would be interested in knowing those numbers. However,
>>>it has to be said that many are undiagnosed. The typical
>>>DM2 isn't diagnosed until they've been losing beta cells
>>>for an estimated 6.5 years, and presumably they could
>>>have been insulin resistant (IR) for longer than that.
>>>The numbers, to be most helpful, would need to be based
>>>on a careful study of the undiagnosed overweight to
>>>determine whether or not they show any of the precursors
>>>of DM (high blood pressure, bad lipid levels, some
>>>insulin resistance, high insulin levels) and choices
>>>would have to be made about how to classify those that
>>>did show less than optimal readings. There is no sudden
>>>jump in these levels from a diagnosis of normal to IR to
>>>DM: it is a smooth continuum: a given person could be
>>>anywhere on the range.
>>
>>Yes
>>
>>>>> I believe that this could be your (and many other anti-
>>>>> LC advocates) case - you can perhaps maintain your
>>>>> weight without problems, so you tend not to believe
>>>>> that people affected by syndrome actually ARE hungry
>>>>> soon after eating carbs, even relatively low-GI ones.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, I definitely am. And yes, I concur; it may well be
>>>that some people are and some are not.
>>
>>Many are when eating anything.
>>
>>>>If you are ill, then you must tailor your lifestyle to
>>>>fit that illness. If you are overweight, then reduce
>>>>caloric intake, if you are underexercised, then
>>>>exercise. If you have a problem metabolising a food,
>>>>then avoid or manage it. But for normal healthy
>>>>individuals, there is nothing better then a varied,
>>>>eucaloric, wholefood diet with regular moderate
>>>>exercise, like the wise ones have advocated for decades
>>>>if not centuries.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I won't disagree with that, even though I don't think
>>>that humans evolved eating grains (domestication of
>>>grains is a modern invention - only about 6,000 years
>>>old, isn't it?).
>>
>>Yes, mabey 10,000, but humanoids have collected wild grass
>>seeds forever, if they are available where they are of
>>course. Then there are starches like tubers and sago
>>
>
>OK. I think it would have been pretty hard for them to make
>60% of their diet comprise carbs though, especially as much
>of their food would have been seasonal. 10% - 20% maybe,
>but that's just hand-waving. Hard to tell.
Yes. Of course, it might likely have been 60% of their
calorie intake, which was just above starvation level. They
got a lot of execise. Our hunter-gatherer "stone age"
aboriginals collect a lot of plant seeds, plant nectar,
yams, honey, fruits etc. Occasionally they hunt and kill an
animal. They do a hell of a lot of walking.
>>>But I think that the advice given to diabetics is the
>>>same as that given to normal people, and it is
>>>inappropriate.
>>
>>Similar for type ones, but I don't believe that advice
>>given to type 2s is often the same. It is certainly not
>>here. (Australia)
>>
>>Although exercise is the key to control for many.
>>
>>>>>> Energy is not a dirty word. It is arguably the most
>>>>>> important nutrient. It is the nutrient that most of
>>>>>> the world is deficient in.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, but so far we are speaking about opposite
>>>>>problems, aren't we ?
>>>>
>>>>I'm talking about energy requirements of normal
>>>>humans. I agree we tend to get sidetracked on to the
>>>>problems that overfed underexercised westerners find
>>>>themselves in.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But when you are fat already, most likely due to
>>>>>metabolic syndrome,
>>>>
>>>>Well overeating really. That then causes the metabolic
>>>>syndrome, which is self-perpetuating.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This sequence is unproven and circumstantial. Just
>>>because people get diagnosed with the metabolic syndrome
>>>long after they have gained weight doesn't mean that
>>>there wasn't something wrong and undiagnosed at an
>>>earlier stage causing the overeating and weight gain in
>>>the first place. Sure, it *might* just be overeating, but
>>>that behaviour itself might be caused by some disorder
>>>that has yet to be discovered.
>>
>>Yes, anything might be possible. Genetics is the basic
>>"cause" But if you exercise a lot and don't become fat,
>>you won't likely develop DM2. Ninety percent of DM2s are
>>overweight/obese
>>
>>>I agree that the syndrome then becomes self-perpetuating
>>>though, as eating as advised by so many nutritional
>>>'experts' causes more food cravings in such people (going
>>>by my personal experience and that of many others with
>>>diabetes).
>>
>>I'm curious to know who is giving this erronious advice.
>>
>
>See above. :-(
Thanks, I'm still smacking my gob
>>>>>controling high carb food is really the easiest (and
>>>>>possibly healthiest) way how to manage your weight.
>>>>
>>>>When you have that illnes/disability, for sure. Like DM2
>>>>should control with diet and exercsie. For normal
>>>>healthy folk, calories and exercise are the way to
>>>>remain normal, healthy weight
>>>>
>>>>>> Most of the world has grains as a staple, with no
>>>>>> problems. It is only the fat westerners who do. Does
>>>>>> this not tell you something? Perhaps the fatties are
>>>>>> looking for a scapegoat?
>>>>>
>>>>>Also part of problem is that recently we were told that
>>>>>eating carbs is so much healthy that we ate too much of
>>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>>Eating carbs IS healthy. Eating too much of anything is
>>>>not. Some humans can't seem to grasp the meaning of
>>>>moderation.
>>>>
>>>>>Now LC is maybe a public over-reaction to it, anyway
>>>>>for people already damaged by high-carb/high-calorie
>>>>>diet, it _could_ be a viable path to go.
>>>>
>>>>Damaged by high calorie. High carb can't damage you,
>>>>unlesss you a) don't get suffiecient other nutrients, or
>>>>b) don't take enough exercise.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Or c) are diabetic or prone to it, apparently.
>>
>>Sorry, my discussion is restricted to normal healthy
>>adults unless I state otherwise, but of course, I agree
>>with you. If you have a carb metabolic abnormality, then
>>carbs can damage you. Just like gluten can damage coeliac,
>>and walnuts can damage allergy sufferers. This stands to
>>reason, but as I said, not what I was referring to.
>
>Yep, normal healthy adults can cope with such a diet, even
>though I have my reservations about it, given that I
>personally doubt that humans evolved eating such a diet.
>Trouble is, many normal healthy adults are damaged by such
>a diet, and turn out not to be normal or healthy at all.
What damages these folk is eating too much. They evolved
struggling to get a bare minimum for survival. And did lots
of exercise. Our modern aboriginals are overweight, diseased
( kidney and DM2) and have a very short lifespan. They eat
too much "white man's tucker"
