Study says 'Glycemic Index' diet may work

"Diarmid Logan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet

Study says 'Glycemic Index' diet may work

By Lindsey Tanner | Associated Press

Published on Wednesday, November 24, 2004

URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet

CHICAGO -- A diet favoring "good" over "bad" carbohydrates is better
for the heart and less likely to slow down metabolism than a
conventional low-fat diet, a small, preliminary study suggests.

The "glycemic index" diet recommends carbohydrates that do not cause a
sharp rise in blood sugar levels after meals, such as old-fashioned
oatmeal rather than highly processed sugared breakfast cereal. It is
not as anti-carb as Atkins-style regimens, nor as fat-restrictive as
standard low-fat diets.

Proponents call it a happy medium, though skeptics say the science --
including the new study -- doesn't prove that low-glycemic diets are
superior.

The study involved 39 overweight people ages 18 to 40 who were paid
$1,500 to eat hospital-prepared diets for about 10 weeks. Low-glycemic
foods were given to 22 participants, while 17 got the low-fat option.

Participants in both groups lost an average of about 20 pounds. But
glycemic-index dieters fared better on two risk factors for heart
disease: They had a slight decrease in fats in the blood called
triglycerides, versus an increase in the low-fat group, and they had a
much greater reduction in levels of an inflammation-related substance
called C-reactive protein.

Related Links:

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2004/11/23/hscout522521.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/uom-lld112304.php

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/chb-hts112204.php

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/104242.htm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=16835

http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=522521

It's pretty simple to me. Without getting into the technical science of it
and voodoo of it, the current understanding, as I see it, is this:

The human body is a carbohydrate burning machine. Excess carbs are stored
as fat. When the body takes in fewer carbs than needed to maintain, the fat
is burned.

I know there are a lot of contingencies based on a person's health and body
style, but overall this really seems to be the bottom line. Each person has
to find the best route for their own particular situation. I hope that
people in this group, many far smarter than I, continue to provide support
for those who have individual differences and needs. I know that I will
try.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 21:26:31 -0600, "Jim Bard" <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

"Diarmid Logan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet

Study says 'Glycemic Index' diet may work

By Lindsey Tanner | Associated Press

Published on Wednesday, November 24, 2004

URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet

CHICAGO -- A diet favoring "good" over "bad" carbohydrates is better
for the heart and less likely to slow down metabolism than a
conventional low-fat diet, a small, preliminary study suggests.

The "glycemic index" diet recommends carbohydrates that do not cause a
sharp rise in blood sugar levels after meals, such as old-fashioned
oatmeal rather than highly processed sugared breakfast cereal. It is
not as anti-carb as Atkins-style regimens, nor as fat-restrictive as
standard low-fat diets.

Proponents call it a happy medium, though skeptics say the science --
including the new study -- doesn't prove that low-glycemic diets are
superior.

The study involved 39 overweight people ages 18 to 40 who were paid
$1,500 to eat hospital-prepared diets for about 10 weeks. Low-glycemic
foods were given to 22 participants, while 17 got the low-fat option.

Participants in both groups lost an average of about 20 pounds. But
glycemic-index dieters fared better on two risk factors for heart
disease: They had a slight decrease in fats in the blood called
triglycerides, versus an increase in the low-fat group, and they had a
much greater reduction in levels of an inflammation-related substance
called C-reactive protein.

Related Links:

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2004/11/23/hscout522521.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/uom-lld112304.php

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/chb-hts112204.php

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/104242.htm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=16835

http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=522521

It's pretty simple to me. Without getting into the technical science of it
and voodoo of it, the current understanding, as I see it, is this:

The human body is a carbohydrate burning machine.

Nope, it is a cartb/fat burning machine. Every day a person whose
weight is not changing burns every gram of the 30, 40, or 50% calories
as fats that he consumes.

Quoted message said:

Excess carbs are stored
as fat.

Well excess calories are stored as fat.

Quoted message said:

When the body takes in fewer carbs than needed to maintain, the fat
is burned.

Yes, but then so is all fat intake so long as all intake is burned and
not stored.

Quoted message said:

I know there are a lot of contingencies based on a person's health and body
style, but overall this really seems to be the bottom line. Each person has
to find the best route for their own particular situation. I hope that
people in this group, many far smarter than I, continue to provide support
for those who have individual differences and needs. I know that I will
try.

So long as some abnormal folk don't keep thrusting their individual
solutions down everyone's throat :-)

"Jim Bard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Diarmid Logan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet

Study says 'Glycemic Index' diet may work

By Lindsey Tanner | Associated Press

Published on Wednesday, November 24, 2004

URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet

CHICAGO -- A diet favoring "good" over "bad" carbohydrates is better
for the heart and less likely to slow down metabolism than a
conventional low-fat diet, a small, preliminary study suggests.

The "glycemic index" diet recommends carbohydrates that do not cause a
sharp rise in blood sugar levels after meals, such as old-fashioned
oatmeal rather than highly processed sugared breakfast cereal. It is
not as anti-carb as Atkins-style regimens, nor as fat-restrictive as
standard low-fat diets.

Proponents call it a happy medium, though skeptics say the science --
including the new study -- doesn't prove that low-glycemic diets are
superior.

The study involved 39 overweight people ages 18 to 40 who were paid
$1,500 to eat hospital-prepared diets for about 10 weeks. Low-glycemic
foods were given to 22 participants, while 17 got the low-fat option.

Participants in both groups lost an average of about 20 pounds. But
glycemic-index dieters fared better on two risk factors for heart
disease: They had a slight decrease in fats in the blood called
triglycerides, versus an increase in the low-fat group, and they had a
much greater reduction in levels of an inflammation-related substance
called C-reactive protein.

Related Links:

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2004/11/23/hscout522521.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/uom-lld112304.php

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/chb-hts112204.php

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/104242.htm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=16835

http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=522521

It's pretty simple to me. Without getting into the technical science of it
and voodoo of it, the current understanding, as I see it, is this:

The human body is a carbohydrate burning machine. Excess carbs are stored
as fat. When the body takes in fewer carbs than needed to maintain, the fat
is burned.

I know there are a lot of contingencies based on a person's health and body
style, but overall this really seems to be the bottom line. Each person has
to find the best route for their own particular situation. I hope that
people in this group, many far smarter than I, continue to provide support
for those who have individual differences and needs. I know that I will
try.

I would look at it differently. Carbohydrates as found in nature and
as found in the quantities available in nature are the right kinds and
the right amounts of carbs. When you start eating the amounts and the
kinds of carbs that are being hawked by these multinational
corporations you are overloading our system with too many refined
carbs. The body cannot use these up and ends up storing it as fat.

The natural amounts are limited by its seasonal availability and the
amount of time and work needed to gather/harvest and prepare them. The
kinds of carbs humans naturally consume are whole food, generally
lower GI, and chock full of vitamins and minerals.

The amounts and kinds iof carbs we are consuming today are way beyond
what we evolved to eat. We simply are not genetically designed to eat
huge amounts of refined carbs like soda, pasta, potato chips, RTE
cereals, white bread and buns, donuts, cake, candies, cookies, etc.
All of which are high GI, very high in overall carbs (compared to real
carbs) and are bereft of vitamins and minerals. It fattens you up at
the same time as it robs you of real nutrition.

TC

Now this makes sense to me.

--
- Bear
Grrrrrrrr : o)
353/285/210

"tcomeau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I would look at it differently. Carbohydrates as found in nature and
as found in the quantities available in nature are the right kinds and
the right amounts of carbs. When you start eating the amounts and the
kinds of carbs that are being hawked by these multinational
corporations you are overloading our system with too many refined
carbs. The body cannot use these up and ends up storing it as fat.

The natural amounts are limited by its seasonal availability and the
amount of time and work needed to gather/harvest and prepare them. The
kinds of carbs humans naturally consume are whole food, generally
lower GI, and chock full of vitamins and minerals.

The amounts and kinds iof carbs we are consuming today are way beyond
what we evolved to eat. We simply are not genetically designed to eat
huge amounts of refined carbs like soda, pasta, potato chips, RTE
cereals, white bread and buns, donuts, cake, candies, cookies, etc.
All of which are high GI, very high in overall carbs (compared to real
carbs) and are bereft of vitamins and minerals. It fattens you up at
the same time as it robs you of real nutrition.

TC

This study only found that a low glycemic diet is slightly better for
triglycerides than the low fat diet which is known to cause triglycerides to
rise dramatically. If they'd compared the two diets with a very low carb
diet they would have found the very low carb diet even better for
triglycerides, but they didn't, because their goal was to "prove" that low
glycemic diets are the best.

As anyone with a meter knows, the carbs in the supposedly low glycemic diet
still hit your blood stream eventually and do raise blood sugar. They don't
raise it so fast, but they do raise it and it does take insulin to bring it
back down.

A low glycemic diet can still give you damagingly high blood sugars (over
140 mg/dl at 2 hours.)

These dietary studies are so obviously crafted to prove some point that the
nutritionist believes is gospel rather than investigate with an open mind.

I suspect that the grain people are funding this recent spate of studies
about how healthy low glycemic grains are.

-- Jenny - Low Carbing for 5 years. Below goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes,
hba1c 5.7 .
Cut the carbs to respond to my email address!

Jenny's new site: What they Don't Tell You About Diabetes
http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/

Jenny's Low Carb Diet Facts & Figures
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/

Looking for help controlling your blood sugar?
Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm

"Diarmid Logan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet

Study says 'Glycemic Index' diet may work

By Lindsey Tanner | Associated Press

Published on Wednesday, November 24, 2004

URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet

CHICAGO -- A diet favoring "good" over "bad" carbohydrates is better
for the heart and less likely to slow down metabolism than a
conventional low-fat diet, a small, preliminary study suggests.

The "glycemic index" diet recommends carbohydrates that do not cause a
sharp rise in blood sugar levels after meals, such as old-fashioned
oatmeal rather than highly processed sugared breakfast cereal. It is
not as anti-carb as Atkins-style regimens, nor as fat-restrictive as
standard low-fat diets.

Proponents call it a happy medium, though skeptics say the science --
including the new study -- doesn't prove that low-glycemic diets are
superior.

The study involved 39 overweight people ages 18 to 40 who were paid
$1,500 to eat hospital-prepared diets for about 10 weeks. Low-glycemic
foods were given to 22 participants, while 17 got the low-fat option.

Participants in both groups lost an average of about 20 pounds. But
glycemic-index dieters fared better on two risk factors for heart
disease: They had a slight decrease in fats in the blood called
triglycerides, versus an increase in the low-fat group, and they had a
much greater reduction in levels of an inflammation-related substance
called C-reactive protein.

Related Links:

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2004/11/23/hscout522521.
html

Quoted message said:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/uom-lld112304.php

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/chb-hts112204.php

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/104242.htm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=16835

http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=522521

Jenny said:

This study only found that a low glycemic diet is slightly better for
triglycerides than the low fat diet which is known to cause triglycerides to
rise dramatically. If they'd compared the two diets with a very low carb
diet they would have found the very low carb diet even better for
triglycerides, but they didn't, because their goal was to "prove" that low
glycemic diets are the best.

As anyone with a meter knows, the carbs in the supposedly low glycemic diet
still hit your blood stream eventually and do raise blood sugar. They don't
raise it so fast, but they do raise it and it does take insulin to bring it
back down.

So what? So does protein.

Quoted message said:

A low glycemic diet can still give you damagingly high blood sugars (over
140 mg/dl at 2 hours.)

If you are a poorly controlled diabetic.

Quoted message said:

These dietary studies are so obviously crafted to prove some point that the
nutritionist believes is gospel rather than investigate with an open mind.

I suspect that the grain people are funding this recent spate of studies
about how healthy low glycemic grains are.

-- Jenny - Low Carbing for 5 years. Below goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes,
hba1c 5.7 .
Cut the carbs to respond to my email address!

Jenny's new site: What they Don't Tell You About Diabetes
http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/

Jenny's Low Carb Diet Facts & Figures
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/

Looking for help controlling your blood sugar?
Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm

"Diarmid Logan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet

Study says 'Glycemic Index' diet may work

By Lindsey Tanner | Associated Press

Published on Wednesday, November 24, 2004

URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet

CHICAGO -- A diet favoring "good" over "bad" carbohydrates is better
for the heart and less likely to slow down metabolism than a
conventional low-fat diet, a small, preliminary study suggests.

The "glycemic index" diet recommends carbohydrates that do not cause a
sharp rise in blood sugar levels after meals, such as old-fashioned
oatmeal rather than highly processed sugared breakfast cereal. It is
not as anti-carb as Atkins-style regimens, nor as fat-restrictive as
standard low-fat diets.

Proponents call it a happy medium, though skeptics say the science --
including the new study -- doesn't prove that low-glycemic diets are
superior.

The study involved 39 overweight people ages 18 to 40 who were paid
$1,500 to eat hospital-prepared diets for about 10 weeks. Low-glycemic
foods were given to 22 participants, while 17 got the low-fat option.

Participants in both groups lost an average of about 20 pounds. But
glycemic-index dieters fared better on two risk factors for heart
disease: They had a slight decrease in fats in the blood called
triglycerides, versus an increase in the low-fat group, and they had a
much greater reduction in levels of an inflammation-related substance
called C-reactive protein.

Related Links:

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2004/11/23/hscout522521.
html

Quoted message said:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/uom-lld112304.php

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/chb-hts112204.php

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/104242.htm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=16835

http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=522521

But isn't controlling it eating things that don't elevate blood sugars? It
sound to me like eating tons of carbs, even low glycemic ones, is NOT
controlling diabetes.

In news:[email hidden],
jt <[email hidden]> stated
|
|
|| A low glycemic diet can still give you damagingly high blood sugars
|| (over 140 mg/dl at 2 hours.)
|
| If you are a poorly controlled diabetic.
|

"Diarmid Logan" wrote in message...

Quoted message said:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet

Study says 'Glycemic Index' diet may work

Yes, it does work. One of my uncles has gone from over 500 lbs (505 or
507 - I can't remember), down to 253 lbs (as of last weekend) in just over a
year.

And before anybody starts to dismiss it as a fluke or an "unhealthy way to
lose weight" or whatever - all I have to say is that it doesn't matter. Do
whatever you have to do - whatever works for you - to drop your bodyfat
percentage.

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:03:55 -0800, "Bear"
<[email hidden]> Screamed something into the void that
sounded like:

Quoted message said:

Now this makes sense to me.

--
- Bear
Grrrrrrrr : o)
353/285/210

"tcomeau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I would look at it differently. Carbohydrates as found in nature and
as found in the quantities available in nature are the right kinds and
the right amounts of carbs. When you start eating the amounts and the
kinds of carbs that are being hawked by these multinational
corporations you are overloading our system with too many refined
carbs. The body cannot use these up and ends up storing it as fat.

Yea sure that explains why 1 banana will really spike a diabetic's BG.

people need to stop blaming corporations for what the people
themselves stick into their own bodies.

"tcomeau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jim Bard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Diarmid Logan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet

Study says 'Glycemic Index' diet may work

By Lindsey Tanner | Associated Press

Published on Wednesday, November 24, 2004

URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet

CHICAGO -- A diet favoring "good" over "bad" carbohydrates is better
for the heart and less likely to slow down metabolism than a
conventional low-fat diet, a small, preliminary study suggests.

The "glycemic index" diet recommends carbohydrates that do not cause a
sharp rise in blood sugar levels after meals, such as old-fashioned
oatmeal rather than highly processed sugared breakfast cereal. It is
not as anti-carb as Atkins-style regimens, nor as fat-restrictive as
standard low-fat diets.

Proponents call it a happy medium, though skeptics say the science --
including the new study -- doesn't prove that low-glycemic diets are
superior.

The study involved 39 overweight people ages 18 to 40 who were paid
$1,500 to eat hospital-prepared diets for about 10 weeks. Low-glycemic
foods were given to 22 participants, while 17 got the low-fat option.

Participants in both groups lost an average of about 20 pounds. But
glycemic-index dieters fared better on two risk factors for heart
disease: They had a slight decrease in fats in the blood called
triglycerides, versus an increase in the low-fat group, and they had a
much greater reduction in levels of an inflammation-related substance
called C-reactive protein.

Related Links:

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2004/11/23/hscout522521.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/uom-lld112304.php

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-11/chb-hts112204.php

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/104242.htm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=16835

http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=522521

It's pretty simple to me. Without getting into the technical science of
it
and voodoo of it, the current understanding, as I see it, is this:

The human body is a carbohydrate burning machine. Excess carbs are
stored
as fat. When the body takes in fewer carbs than needed to maintain, the
fat
is burned.

I know there are a lot of contingencies based on a person's health and
body
style, but overall this really seems to be the bottom line. Each person
has
to find the best route for their own particular situation. I hope that
people in this group, many far smarter than I, continue to provide
support
for those who have individual differences and needs. I know that I will
try.

I would look at it differently. Carbohydrates as found in nature and
as found in the quantities available in nature are the right kinds and
the right amounts of carbs. When you start eating the amounts and the
kinds of carbs that are being hawked by these multinational
corporations you are overloading our system with too many refined
carbs. The body cannot use these up and ends up storing it as fat.

The natural amounts are limited by its seasonal availability and the
amount of time and work needed to gather/harvest and prepare them. The
kinds of carbs humans naturally consume are whole food, generally
lower GI, and chock full of vitamins and minerals.

The amounts and kinds iof carbs we are consuming today are way beyond
what we evolved to eat. We simply are not genetically designed to eat
huge amounts of refined carbs like soda, pasta, potato chips, RTE
cereals, white bread and buns, donuts, cake, candies, cookies, etc.
All of which are high GI, very high in overall carbs (compared to real
carbs) and are bereft of vitamins and minerals. It fattens you up at
the same time as it robs you of real nutrition.

TC

Exactly!
There is a big difference between a manufacture carb diet that resembles a
high school chemistry experiment gone bad, and a diet containing carbs from
natural sources such as fresh meat, vegatables, fruits, and whole grains.

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:12:42 GMT, "FOB" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

But isn't controlling it eating things that don't elevate blood sugars? It
sound to me like eating tons of carbs, even low glycemic ones, is NOT
controlling diabetes.

Eating a well balanced diet with carbs from whole grains not refined
carbs and tons of sugar is controlling it. As well as getting some
physical activity which is equally important, and it is a lot harder
to be physically active on a low carb diet.

FOB said:

But isn't controlling it eating things that don't elevate blood sugars? It
sound to me like eating tons of carbs, even low glycemic ones, is NOT
controlling diabetes.

In news:[email hidden],
jt <[email hidden]> stated
|
|
|| A low glycemic diet can still give you damagingly high blood sugars
|| (over 140 mg/dl at 2 hours.)
|
| If you are a poorly controlled diabetic.

Who said tons? Rough oats for breakfast will do it for me - and that's
a small bowl, not tons. Ditto for wholemeal bread and any cereal
including those of lower GI grains.

The average carb consumption in westernised countries is too high to
start with. Substituting lower GI carbs for higher GI carbs will still
cause dangerous BG levels for a diabetic unless the quantity is also
brought down.

A combination of lower GI and a reduced- or low-carb diet seems to be
the solution for control of diabetes. You can't win by using one wihout
the other and as Jenny pointed out, this addresses only one part of the
problem.

As for "things that don't elevate blood sugars" - I am not aware of many
foods that will not raise the BG of a T1 with no naturally produced
insulin whatsoever. It would mean finding foods with zero carb, zero
fat and zero protein. I know I am taking that statement entirely out of
context, but it is an oversimplified statement and oversimplifying the
situation is what we are talking about here. (no offence intended)
--------------------
VBH
T2/UK/A1c 5.8/ 1000Met/Dx Oct-03

Neither, I am from diet.low-carb. Am probably pre-diabetic but have been
low carbing for over a year now so am likely at much lower risk than
previously.

In news:[email hidden],
Alan <[email hidden]> stated
| On 25 Nov 2004 12:34:09 -0600, jt <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
|| On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:12:42 GMT, "FOB" <[email hidden]>
|| wrote:
||
||| But isn't controlling it eating things that don't elevate blood
||| sugars? It sound to me like eating tons of carbs, even low
||| glycemic ones, is NOT controlling diabetes.
||
|| Eating a well balanced diet with carbs from whole grains not refined
|| carbs and tons of sugar is controlling it. As well as getting some
|| physical activity which is equally important, and it is a lot harder
|| to be physically active on a low carb diet.
|
| Hi FOB
|
| Post-prandial BGs in an acceptable range and an A1c under 6%, and B P
| <125/80 and lipids in normal range with a TC/HDL ratio under 3 and
| keeping the 'opathy sisters at bay and many other factors too numerous
| to list is partly controlling it and hopefully limiting progression.
|
| "Eating a well balanced diet with carbs from whole grains not refined
| carbs and tons of sugar" is an important part of that. Knowing what
| you can eat and when within that definition is a far more important
| part.
|
| Simplistic dietary statements on this complex disease based on decades
| of misinformation from mis-guided sources like the USDA are a
| significant part of the epidemic we now face.
|
| Haven't seen you in the diabetes ngs. Are you T1 or T2? A1c?
|
|
| Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
| Remove weight and carbs to email.
| --
| Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

When I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in June of this year, I weighed
206 pounds. Before I even saw a Diabetes Educator and nutritionist (I had
to wait a month for an appointment) I understood from reading that I needed
to lower my carb intake to lower my glucose numbers. By lowering the carb
intake, it naturally follows that the fat intake and caloric intake are also
lowered. I now weigh 155 pounds, consuming around 1500 calories and 145 gms
of carbs a day.

I'm a firm believer in a low carb (NOT Atkins or no carb) meal plan. I now
understand that this is the way I have to eat for the rest of my life.

--
Kat

"Bryan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Diarmid Logan" wrote in message...

Quoted message said:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet

Study says 'Glycemic Index' diet may work

Yes, it does work. One of my uncles has gone from over 500 lbs (505 or
507 - I can't remember), down to 253 lbs (as of last weekend) in just over
a year.

And before anybody starts to dismiss it as a fluke or an "unhealthy way to
lose weight" or whatever - all I have to say is that it doesn't matter.
Do whatever you have to do - whatever works for you - to drop your bodyfat
percentage.

jt said:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:12:42 GMT, "FOB" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

But isn't controlling it eating things that don't elevate blood sugars? It
sound to me like eating tons of carbs, even low glycemic ones, is NOT
controlling diabetes.

Eating a well balanced diet with carbs from whole grains not refined
carbs and tons of sugar is controlling it. As well as getting some
physical activity which is equally important, and it is a lot harder
to be physically active on a low carb diet.

Hi FOB

Post-prandial BGs in an acceptable range and an A1c under 6%, and BP
<125/80 and lipids in normal range with a TC/HDL ratio under 3 and
keeping the 'opathy sisters at bay and many other factors too numerous
to list is partly controlling it and hopefully limiting progression.

"Eating a well balanced diet with carbs from whole grains not refined
carbs and tons of sugar" is an important part of that. Knowing what you
can eat and when within that definition is a far more important part.

Simplistic dietary statements on this complex disease based on decades
of misinformation from mis-guided sources like the USDA are a
significant part of the epidemic we now face.

Haven't seen you in the diabetes ngs. Are you T1 or T2? A1c?

Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
Remove weight and carbs to email.
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Why do you think that lowering carb intake also lowers fat intake? Fat
intake should rise as you don't want to overdo protein and so the calories
should come from fat.

In news:[email hidden],
Kat <[email hidden]> stated
| When I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in June of this year, I
| weighed 206 pounds. Before I even saw a Diabetes Educator and
| nutritionist (I had to wait a month for an appointment) I understood
| from reading that I needed to lower my carb intake to lower my
| glucose numbers. By lowering the carb intake, it naturally follows
| that the fat intake and caloric intake are also lowered. I now weigh
| 155 pounds, consuming around 1500 calories and 145 gms of carbs a day.
|
| I'm a firm believer in a low carb (NOT Atkins or no carb) meal plan.
| I now understand that this is the way I have to eat for the rest of
| my life.
|
|
| --
| Kat
|
| "Bryan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
||
|| "Diarmid Logan" wrote in message...
||
||| http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet
|||
||| Study says 'Glycemic Index' diet may work
||
|| Yes, it does work. One of my uncles has gone from over 500 lbs (505
|| or 507 - I can't remember), down to 253 lbs (as of last weekend) in
|| just over a year.
||
|| And before anybody starts to dismiss it as a fluke or an "unhealthy
|| way to lose weight" or whatever - all I have to say is that it
|| doesn't matter. Do whatever you have to do - whatever works for you
|| - to drop your bodyfat percentage.

Because, for me, most of my carbs come from vegetables. I have one cup of
pasta a day and 1/2 cup oatmeal. That is the extent of my cereal/grain
servings. I rarely eat bread and rice raises my blood sugar. I also do not
eat pastries or sweets. My meat serving is 6 ounces per day. I drink skim
milk, eat low fat cottage cheese, and low fat cheese.

By comparison, I used to consume probably 3500 to 4000 calories per day and
most of it was fast food or fried foods and I wasn't getting any exercise at
all.

My last HA1C was 5.6, my blood pressure was 110/70, cholesterol was 167, HDL
was 38 (which is just a touch low), LDL was 101, and triglicerides were 139.
I'd say that I must be doing something right.

--
Kat 🙂

"FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Why do you think that lowering carb intake also lowers fat intake? Fat
intake should rise as you don't want to overdo protein and so the calories
should come from fat.

In news:[email hidden],
Kat <[email hidden]> stated
| When I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in June of this year, I
| weighed 206 pounds. Before I even saw a Diabetes Educator and
| nutritionist (I had to wait a month for an appointment) I understood
| from reading that I needed to lower my carb intake to lower my
| glucose numbers. By lowering the carb intake, it naturally follows
| that the fat intake and caloric intake are also lowered. I now weigh
| 155 pounds, consuming around 1500 calories and 145 gms of carbs a day.
|
| I'm a firm believer in a low carb (NOT Atkins or no carb) meal plan.
| I now understand that this is the way I have to eat for the rest of
| my life.
|
|
| --
| Kat
|
| "Bryan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
||
|| "Diarmid Logan" wrote in message...
||
||| http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet
|||
||| Study says 'Glycemic Index' diet may work
||
|| Yes, it does work. One of my uncles has gone from over 500 lbs (505
|| or 507 - I can't remember), down to 253 lbs (as of last weekend) in
|| just over a year.
||
|| And before anybody starts to dismiss it as a fluke or an "unhealthy
|| way to lose weight" or whatever - all I have to say is that it
|| doesn't matter. Do whatever you have to do - whatever works for you
|| - to drop your bodyfat percentage.

Aren't you hungry all the time?

In news:[email hidden],
Kat <[email hidden]> stated
| Because, for me, most of my carbs come from vegetables. I have one
| cup of pasta a day and 1/2 cup oatmeal. That is the extent of my
| cereal/grain servings. I rarely eat bread and rice raises my blood
| sugar. I also do not eat pastries or sweets. My meat serving is 6
| ounces per day. I drink skim milk, eat low fat cottage cheese, and
| low fat cheese.
|
| By comparison, I used to consume probably 3500 to 4000 calories per
| day and most of it was fast food or fried foods and I wasn't getting
| any exercise at all.
|
| My last HA1C was 5.6, my blood pressure was 110/70, cholesterol was
| 167, HDL was 38 (which is just a touch low), LDL was 101, and
| triglicerides were 139. I'd say that I must be doing something right.
|
| --
| Kat 🙂
|
| "FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
|| Why do you think that lowering carb intake also lowers fat intake?
|| Fat intake should rise as you don't want to overdo protein and so
|| the calories should come from fat.
||
|| In news:[email hidden],
|| Kat <[email hidden]> stated
||| When I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in June of this year, I
||| weighed 206 pounds. Before I even saw a Diabetes Educator and
||| nutritionist (I had to wait a month for an appointment) I understood
||| from reading that I needed to lower my carb intake to lower my
||| glucose numbers. By lowering the carb intake, it naturally follows
||| that the fat intake and caloric intake are also lowered. I now
||| weigh 155 pounds, consuming around 1500 calories and 145 gms of
||| carbs a day.
|||
||| I'm a firm believer in a low carb (NOT Atkins or no carb) meal plan.
||| I now understand that this is the way I have to eat for the rest of
||| my life.
|||
|||
||| --
||| Kat
|||
||| "Bryan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
||| news:[email hidden]...
||||
|||| "Diarmid Logan" wrote in message...
||||
||||| http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet
|||||
||||| Study says 'Glycemic Index' diet may work
||||
|||| Yes, it does work. One of my uncles has gone from over 500 lbs
|||| (505 or 507 - I can't remember), down to 253 lbs (as of last
|||| weekend) in just over a year.
||||
|||| And before anybody starts to dismiss it as a fluke or an "unhealthy
|||| way to lose weight" or whatever - all I have to say is that it
|||| doesn't matter. Do whatever you have to do - whatever works for you
|||| - to drop your bodyfat percentage.

Surprisingly, no. I do eat one apple everyday and salads for snacks. I use
very little (two tablespoons) lowfat salad dressing. For me, vegetables are
quite filling and there aren't many vegetables I don't like. And drinking
water does help curb the appetite.

As some people say in this NG, your mileage may vary. What works for me may
not work for anyone else. That's the "fun" of this disease--it affects
everyone differently.

--
Kat 🙂

"FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Aren't you hungry all the time?

In news:[email hidden],
Kat <[email hidden]> stated
| Because, for me, most of my carbs come from vegetables. I have one
| cup of pasta a day and 1/2 cup oatmeal. That is the extent of my
| cereal/grain servings. I rarely eat bread and rice raises my blood
| sugar. I also do not eat pastries or sweets. My meat serving is 6
| ounces per day. I drink skim milk, eat low fat cottage cheese, and
| low fat cheese.
|
| By comparison, I used to consume probably 3500 to 4000 calories per
| day and most of it was fast food or fried foods and I wasn't getting
| any exercise at all.
|
| My last HA1C was 5.6, my blood pressure was 110/70, cholesterol was
| 167, HDL was 38 (which is just a touch low), LDL was 101, and
| triglicerides were 139. I'd say that I must be doing something right.
|
| --
| Kat 🙂
|
| "FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
|| Why do you think that lowering carb intake also lowers fat intake?
|| Fat intake should rise as you don't want to overdo protein and so
|| the calories should come from fat.
||
|| In news:[email hidden],
|| Kat <[email hidden]> stated
||| When I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in June of this year, I
||| weighed 206 pounds. Before I even saw a Diabetes Educator and
||| nutritionist (I had to wait a month for an appointment) I understood
||| from reading that I needed to lower my carb intake to lower my
||| glucose numbers. By lowering the carb intake, it naturally follows
||| that the fat intake and caloric intake are also lowered. I now
||| weigh 155 pounds, consuming around 1500 calories and 145 gms of
||| carbs a day.
|||
||| I'm a firm believer in a low carb (NOT Atkins or no carb) meal plan.
||| I now understand that this is the way I have to eat for the rest of
||| my life.
|||
|||
||| --
||| Kat
|||
||| "Bryan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
||| news:[email hidden]...
||||
|||| "Diarmid Logan" wrote in message...
||||
||||| http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/112404b_diet
|||||
||||| Study says 'Glycemic Index' diet may work
||||
|||| Yes, it does work. One of my uncles has gone from over 500 lbs
|||| (505 or 507 - I can't remember), down to 253 lbs (as of last
|||| weekend) in just over a year.
||||
|||| And before anybody starts to dismiss it as a fluke or an "unhealthy
|||| way to lose weight" or whatever - all I have to say is that it
|||| doesn't matter. Do whatever you have to do - whatever works for you
|||| - to drop your bodyfat percentage.