These two people struggle with their weight...

"Ignoramus17461" wrote in message
...
Hm, if I was facing hostile people, I would not have much of an
appetite.

Different people seem to handle the same situation in opposite manners. I
have been damned with shyness in my youth. I mostly handle it now, but for
some situations where it overhelms me. Being in this kind of setting is one
of them, I just want to disappear. Food seems to be a way to do that, like
drowing myself in it.

Would you say that eating intuitively and maintaining stable blood
sugar can be goals that are both worthwhile, but contradictory?

It depends. I didn't mean to say I do *nothing* to control my blood sugar.
But I did try to strike a balance that is sustainable. I like sweet things,
so giving them up is obviously sacrifice for me. I could probably get
excellent control by going full low carb or something. But that would mean
giving up something I like, and I'm not sure it would be sustainable. So
far, the only thing I had to give up was the dubious pleasure of filling
myself till my stomach begs mercy. But I had a compensation in that I learnt
to enjoy the food I eat a lot more in the process, so it evens out.
So, right now, I try to integrate my sweets in the way that is the least
damaging to my blood sugar. This means that I won't eat them outside of a
meal, where their GI will be at its lowest. Or that, if I eat something
sweet outside of a meal, I will prefer chocolate to sweets, because
chocolate has a lower GI. Or I will have it after a long walk. I don't ban
any food, but I still pick when I eat it.
My lab results have shown a downward progression of my A1c, so my blood
sugar *is* improving. Same with my FBG, which went from diabetic values to
pretty stable normal values.
*If* I don't manage to keep my A1c low enough, I will consider taking
additionnal actions of course.
Besides, it is not impossible that my body does its own regulation attempts.
For instance, I used to think that more sugar was better. But lately, I have
been perceiving a reversing of the curve, past a certain point, more sugar
tastes worse to me. I used to take my tea with 4-5 sugars (in a large bowl -
30cl), but I have settled for two teaspoons lately, because otherwise it
tastes like syrup. Same when I bake, I often cut the sugar content to 2/3 or
a half, because I like the taste better that way.
Lately, I have also been paying attention to my energy level. Contrary to
what was happening before, I do feel different kind of energy and levels
depending on my food. This is probably a result on not having my blood sugar
stuck in "high" all the time. This causes me to avoid some food at some
times, because it doesn't make me feel good. I wonder if there is a
relationship to blood sugar levels... I know for instance that bananas don't
feel good for me (headache), except when I eat them after a long walk.

It is a question of priorities for me.

Well, I was devastated when I learnt about the diabete. Honestly, when I had
pictures of a life of deprivation, my doctor was talking about doing an
hyperproteidic diet, which I knew would lead to rebound. I very seriously
considered suicide. So, for me, the top priority is finding a compromise I
can live with. Weight loss makes me feel better in my body, it seems I can
do it without torturing myself *and* it helps a bunch with the diabete. So,
my top priority, after living a happy life, is weight loss.
Diabete control is included in the weight loss, losing 50lbs does make a lot
of difference. The other way of controlling the diabete is walking as often
as possible and as fast as possible. I'm starting to feel very seriously
about jogging, and weight lifting. I don't think it's doing much for weight
loss, but I do believe it's doing a lot for the diabete. I was completely
sedentary before. The point is, I don't want exercising to become a core. I
walk, because, except for the past years, I have always been an urban walker
(I hate walking in the country). I can walk fast and long, and I *like* the
feeling, and if I don't do it for a few days, I start not feeling well, like
something is missing.

Myself, I am not a diabetic, but I do try to eat intuitively, while at
the same time making sure that my blood sugar is stable. Both goals
are important to me. I measured my blood sugar on my current diet, and
it is stable as a rock.

I haven't ruled out using a meter. I might decide to use one, maybe not
daily, but as a way to do a full check a day or two a week for instance.
There are people who got for eating intuitively *and* using a meter.
Actually, I found that in the overcoming overeating website (which is one of
the American books about the approach - it's a bit heavy on new-ageish stuff
and not-using-evil-words compared to what I find in France) :
http://www.overcomingovereating.com/Dec96.html#myway
This is a non-diet approach, but it ends up not so unlike to what you will
read in alt.support.diabete. Notice, she's also starting to exercise. Also
notice that she is linking her glycemia to how she feels, and going by
avoiding food that doesn't "feel" well for her. That's also almost the same
approach.

This is a great A1C, as a diabetic. What was it before? I cannot
comment on your FBG, as I do not know what are the units for your 1.03
and 1.01 numbers.

Ah, sorry, I always forget there are two systems. That's in grams per liter.
My first A1c, after one month on Prandin, was at 8.5%; this was in march.
Second reading two months later was at 7%, (when I stopped Prandin), next
one was at 5.8%.
My first FBG, in february, was at 1.79g/l.

Do you take oral medications also?

Not anymore. I was on Prandin for the first 2-3 months, and then stopped it
because I had constant hypoglycemia symptoms after my meals.

This is so great, seems like non-diabetic numbers. (again, not knowing
the units of your 1.03).

That's in g/l. Yes, that's in the normal range (1.1g/l here). High normal
range, but still normal. It seems to show I'm pretty stable at that high
normal value. Hopefully, this one will go a bit lower as I keep losing
weight. I would also like my HDL to finally go up a bit. Both LDL (around
1g/l at last lab) and triglycerides (around 1.5g/l) have gone down, but HDL
is being lazy and stuck at 0.37g/l. Maybe I should start drinking wine or
something...

To me, it was enlightening to see what food did what to my blood
sugar.

Yes, I'm also curious about that That's probably what will have me get a
meter eventually.

because, probably, they are boiled in overused oil...

Actually, they are boiled in hydrogenated oils, it was written on the
package It's just that I had never *felt* that specific taste in
industrial food before, I was just not paying attention enough to tastes.

That's also an option. But other countries have survived on high carb
foods
before. I'm thinking about potatoes in Ireland or white rice in Asia.
Sure,
they were probably never available in unlimited amounts.

Right, but these foods probably are not the worst offenders, by far.

That might also be the difference between an American and myself. I ate some
junk food, but it never *replaced* healthy food. Like I said, the natural
diet of the country tends to be moderate GI. I have always cooked in olive
oil, I have always eaten *some* vegetables, I eat potatoes once a week at
most, I was never a fan of breakfast cereals (or even breakfast for that
matter), bagels are a treat I would buy twice a month...
That's also probably why low-carb seems a bit extreme to me. Since I was
never totally on the other hand of the spectrum, I don't feel the need to go
to the opposite of it with low-carb. I have phased out junk food and
replaced it with equivalent normal food. I still eat cakes, but instead of
bingeing on industrial pastry, I will go to one of the best cake shop of the
city and indulge in one of their delicacies. They taste so good that eating
a single one is enough, and I get no trans fats in the process. Same with
cereals, I never ate much of them, but when I do, I go for oatmeal with
cinnamon. Tastes better, feels better on my body, and it's even less
expensive.

I have read several decision making books, that refer to psychologists
as being particularly susceptible to cognitive biases.

Yes, they are. But in that case, it seems the patients themselves seek to
"please" the psychologists by displaying the troubles they are looking for.
That might explain why we have so many different theories on the matter.

This urge to
please would also explain some of the overeating. They're so in tune
to the external world (externalists) that they trust outside signals
(size of the plate, what others are eating, meal time, whatever food
is in front of them...) more than their inner ones (hunger,
satiety). They will also try to please others before themselves. So,
if presented with another round of food, they will just keep eating,
in order to please the host, even if way past satiety.

That, while true, does not explain binging while eating alone...

True, but feeling like an empty shell, because you depend on the others to
exist, might explain it. Notice how many dieters have a lot of troubles with
their body image, and are constantly surprised at how others respond to it.
This loss of self image often existed *before* the diet. Inhabiting a body
that is constantly fuzzy and changing according to what you think others
perceive is very destabilizing. The binges might be an attempt to give that
feeling of inhabiting a body with clear boundaries, because of the intense
feelings it gives (physical fullness, pain, chewing with a full mouth...).

That's right, typically, any real life situation involves several
factors and influences. Unfortunately, writers and researchers can
fall victim to the "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
nail" syndrome.

Some are beginning to see the like. People are starting to preach for a
multi-specialist approach to obesity. Like, a patient should be followed by
at least a nutritionnist and a psychologist. For instance, the nutritionnist
I see is part of an association (www.gros.org) which is made of several
different specialists working together and teaching each others. They have
nutritionnists, dietitians, psychoanalysts (classic Freudian approach),
psychiatrists (behavioural, cognitive and a bit of Freudian), sophrologists
(the various "body" therapy, gestalt and so on)... So, you can have a
nutritionnnist helping you with your attitude towards food, a psychologist
working with your mind and a physical therapist using massages or meditation
to get you in tune with your body. They also have a loose network of various
doctors (vein specialists, gynecologists...) that have agreed to a charter
and treat obese people humanely (many people have troubles finding doctors
that will consider their disease instead of their weight).
Sadly, many doctors indeed go for a very simplistic approach. Diet oriented
doctors (and books) often ignore all the psychological part. But as my
nutritionnist told me, it doesn't matter to a doctor if you are able to
maintain or not, he will have earned the same amount of money in the
process; the less work, the better...

Lictor wrote:

So far, the only thing I had to
give up was the dubious pleasure of filling myself till my stomach
begs mercy.

Brilliantly phrased, Lictor! I really like this statement, and it lines up
well with my current diet philosophy. Mind if I borrow it? :-)


--
carla
http://geekofalltrades.typepad.com/geek

"Ignoramus4234" wrote in message
...
Maybe, later on, you could cut some foods that affects your blood
sugar badly, when you have more control over eating.

Maybe. But it seems I do handle "middle"-carb well enough to get decent
results, and I'm still halfway in my weight loss. This means I still have
some room for improvement. I'm also thinking of increasing the exercise
level, as soon as I get the guts to start rollerblading seriously So, my
hope are that I can tolerate a wide enough panel of food, provided I keep
the weight loss and exercise. The point of the random post prandial test I
did was part of checking what happens after a trully high carb meal. It's
not a fully satisfying test, because I don't know what was happening at the
1 hour mark, but it's nevertheless encouraging.

do you eat dark chocolate?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no It depends on the mood mostly. Sometimes, I
go for the 70-99% version (though the 99% version is serious business).
Sometimes I go for milk or even Belgian chocolate. I know the low GI only
applies for dark chocolate. Usually, I keep to low amounts.

I had the same experience, now sweets taste sickeningly sweet.

That's not so bad, but there is a real change in my taste. Same with some
fats, or plainly too much fat. I have had weird cravings too. Back when I
was doing my all-chocolate meals (120g of chocolate instead of lunch), I was
litterally craving for greens (and meat/fish) at dinner.
Now, if I could get the same result with salt...

I actually love walking in the country.

I'm strictly urban I love dodging the slow moving pedestrians and cars,
and having fast moving scenery. Walking in the country just feels like not
moving at all. But I could certainly do without the cars in Paris, air
pollution is the real nuisance while walking.

That's a huge and real, undeniable, improvement.

Thanks
I just did have my eyes checked (can't see worth a damn right now because of
the funduscopy - sorry for the typing ), and everything is ok, except I'm
getting "commodity" glasses (I can see fine without them, but I have a very
slight astigmatism). But no sign of retinopathy at all, that was my main
worry since I don't know when I started having the diabete. That would seem
to indicate it's fairly recent.

Here in the US, that stuff is cheap. I would imagine that in France,
you might even be able to get it for free, as part of your
prescription?

Nope. Most things are well covered, with a handful of exceptions. This
includes dental prosthesis and glasses, but my private insurance covers them
well. But meters are not part of the deal They are automatically if you
are T1, but T2 can only get one once they have a retinopathy or another
complication. Since I do not intend to get retinopathy, I'm afraid I would
have to spend the money on the meter. But they are indeed cheap, the
expensive part remains the consumables (actually, some meters are free if
you buy enough strips). Yes, that's extremelly stupid of the health
insurance system. It's a good one, but not perfect, that's one prime
example.

That I gave a meter to my dad as a gift, pretty much diagnozed him,
whereas it could be years more before a diagnosis if he did not test
himself. Our "home meter" diagnosis was later confirmed by a lab test
and a doctor's diagnosis, but it was a no brainer after the meter
results.

Well, at least, lab tests *are* free, never paid a cent for them. So, I was
running an A1c a month at the beginning. Which is why I don't totally buy
the 3 month inertia story on A1c, it does move pretty fast.

As a kid, I did not eat American junk food simply because junk food
did not exist in my country at the time. Hence, I did not have
emotional attachment to it, I simply liked its taste (because it is
designed to be super tasty).

Well, everyone has a different definition of junk food. Some people will
call potatoes and chocolate junk food, others will call sweets junk food and
other will call anything fatty junk food, while for some people this applies
only to any kind of "industrial food" (whatever that means)...
I do think there are key specificities in America, or at least there was a
few years ago since Europe is catching on, which might explain why they get
so much obesity (especially if you look at super-obesity and ignore the
overweight range where many European obeses are). One of them is that meals
have lost their structure. For instance, it's common for kids (and young
adults) to eat in the afternoon, but it's structured as a meal here, not as
eating something in the streets. So, even if junk food are indeed eaten,
they are often mixed with other food.
And I don't think "industrial" food actually is tasty. It's salty or sweet,
it's fat, it has a strong chemical taste, but I would not call that tasty.
If you compare industrial pastry and quality pastry, the later has a much
more complex taste, one that evolves as you eat, a specific aftertaste and
so one. On the other hand, industrial pastry is very one dimensional. Part
of the exercises I did was trying to describe how the food I eat tastes, in
order to perceive alliesthesia (the diminution of the pleasure given by the
taste as satiety sets in, until you get negative alliesthesia if you ate too
much and find the food sickly). The first time I really perceived
alliesthesia was on a complex meal (chicken tajine - North African stew,
with prune and cinnamon), and it was an extremelly clear signal (tasteful -
sickly in a couple of mouthfuls). Maybe alliesthesia doesn't operate that
well on industrial food, because they are downed in salt (flavour enhancer)
and fats and their taste is so one dimensionnal but artificially strong. It
took me a longer while to feel alliesthesia on such food, that might be an
explanation of why it's easy to overeat them.

That this diet, SO FAR, lets me maintain normal weight without any
thinking, lets me suspect that it is the right diet for me.

As long as it works for you
Actually, the more I read about successful dieters, the less I'm convinced
it's the diet that did the job. If you look at people like Crafting Mom,
they mostly built their own diet which happened to be low carb, started to
eat according to their body needs and are eventually eating quite
intuitively. Most of these people seem to have achieved some state where
they are just plainly at peace with food and themselves, and when eating
stops being the focus of their days. They are often the ones that are not
interrested in "magical" low-carb or low-fat food as well, which means they
are actually eating real food, and not magical solutions to their problem.
Most of that process was accomplished outside of the pattern of the diet,
though the diet induced weight loss was probably a trigger or enabler.

As it appears that all warnings against saturated fat and cholesterol
are based on junk science (something I am still deciding on, but
that's what the evidence that I saw leans towards), I don't think that
it is likely that my health is going to suffer in some way.

Well, as long as your labs look fine to you
I know that my generalist was urging me to drop all fats. I didn't. I still
use a little butter, and I still eat my eggs on the week-end. As before, my
main fat remains olive oil, but I use colza or walnut for seasonning (walnut
tastes better, colza is useful when you don't want your seasonning to taste
too strong). The only fat I removed are trans fats; I might eat something
with them once in a blue moon, but that's all. This doesn't mean I don't eat
industrial pastry from time to time, but I buy the ones with butter or
coconut oil (they taste much better anyway). This seems to have done the
trick for me. There seems to be some problems with eating only
poly-unsaturated oils (bleeding, vitamin E deprivation) and with eating only
saturated fats. Common sense would hint that one should balance the various
fats together. That's what many traditionnal diets do, they use a mix of the
three kinds of fats. Also remember that animal fats and eggs used to be less
saturated than they are now; just check the nutrition data of pork meat or
eggs when the animals has been fed with flax seeds, they have one third of
each fat group usually. Animals fed with acorns tend to have the same
quality of fat.

Well, and since psychologists normally make money by the hour, they
have an incentive to drag the process along. It is very hard to get
rid of the "agency problem" (incentives not matching)...

Well, at least, my nutritionnist is over-booked, so she doesn't need *me* to
pay her mortgage That's where you have to spend the time to find the
right doctor. I believe some are working for the pride as much as for the
money. For instance, I know my dentist would rather remove and throw away an
even slightly damaged enamelled post and pay the $300 its worth rather than
leave an imperfect work on a patient. I also know my nutritionnist lowers
her prices for people without a supplementary private insurance (quite a few
psychologists do). These are usually good indicator that the doctor is not
only after your money.
Though she's only there to provide some help where I need, I'm the one doing
most of the work. If I feel she's not helping me, I can always fire her. I
don't think it can work if you're not the one doing most of the work.