Back from being lost at sea (long report)

Doug,

NO! You cannot get the blood sugar benefits from low glycemic carbs because
anyone with a meter finds very quickly that many of the "low glycemic" carbs
push up blood sugar very high. Plus, one serving of some of the supposedly
"low glycemic" foods can easily contain 20 -60 grams or more of carbs and
send your blood sugar up for many hours. In fact, all the "slowness" of the
carb means is that it takes longer to hit the bloodstream and LONGER TO
EXIT. It will still provoke an insulin response and since you have had
diabetic blood sugars in the past, it is likely you are spiking to dangerous
levels when eating some of these foods.

Get someone in the US to mail you an $8 Relion meter from Wal-Mart and a $40
box of 100 strips and start testing your blood sugar 1 hour after you eat a
food. You'll quickly find out which foods push up your blood sugar. I've
seen some of the highest readings ever with foods that are supposedly "low
glycemic" most notably chickpeas.

--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/...0Diagnosed.htm


"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
Thanks for your reply!

Yes - I know that low carb and low cal are not necessarily incompatible.
Well, at least low cal and *lower* carb are not. I think it would be very
hard to eat low cal and keep carbs at, say, under 30 gm per day!

I didn't realize that about bacon fat. Interesting.

About blood sugar - I am a bit worried about that. A year ago March I
started Atkins after a diabetes scare - symptoms, blood sugar over 200,
A1C
of 10.6. After a time on low carb it came under control - blood sugar
about
100, AIC of just 4.6, etc.

I wish I had something to measure my blood sugar without running over to
the
hospital all the time. That is the only thing I am worried about.

Surely, though, I can get the blood sugar control benefits of low carb by
just sticking to low glycemic index foods, rather than low carb foods,
can't
I?

Thanks,

doug


On 9/14/04 7:32 PM, in article , "Ignoramus13229"
wrote:

Doug, it is always interesting to see these human stories of struggle
with weight. Just two things that I want to say, one, low carb and low
cal are not incompatible -- one could eat low calorie while at the
same time eating low carb, and two, bacon contains only 1/3 of its fat
as saturated, 2/3 of bacon fat is not saturated.

Also, you mentioned stable blood sugars in passing. If you are really
a diabetic or a pre-diabetic, keeping blood sugar stable is very
important, because unstable blood sugar causes terrible
complications. So, I would give this issue more than a passing
reference.

i

Doug,

NO! You cannot get the blood sugar benefits from low glycemic carbs because
anyone with a meter finds very quickly that many of the "low glycemic" carbs
push up blood sugar very high. Plus, one serving of some of the supposedly
"low glycemic" foods can easily contain 20 -60 grams or more of carbs and
send your blood sugar up for many hours. In fact, all the "slowness" of the
carb means is that it takes longer to hit the bloodstream and LONGER TO
EXIT. It will still provoke an insulin response and since you have had
diabetic blood sugars in the past, it is likely you are spiking to dangerous
levels when eating some of these foods.

Get someone in the US to mail you an $8 Relion meter from Wal-Mart and a $40
box of 100 strips and start testing your blood sugar 1 hour after you eat a
food. You'll quickly find out which foods push up your blood sugar. I've
seen some of the highest readings ever with foods that are supposedly "low
glycemic" most notably chickpeas.

--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/...0Diagnosed.htm


"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
Thanks for your reply!

Yes - I know that low carb and low cal are not necessarily incompatible.
Well, at least low cal and *lower* carb are not. I think it would be very
hard to eat low cal and keep carbs at, say, under 30 gm per day!

I didn't realize that about bacon fat. Interesting.

About blood sugar - I am a bit worried about that. A year ago March I
started Atkins after a diabetes scare - symptoms, blood sugar over 200,
A1C
of 10.6. After a time on low carb it came under control - blood sugar
about
100, AIC of just 4.6, etc.

I wish I had something to measure my blood sugar without running over to
the
hospital all the time. That is the only thing I am worried about.

Surely, though, I can get the blood sugar control benefits of low carb by
just sticking to low glycemic index foods, rather than low carb foods,
can't
I?

Thanks,

doug


On 9/14/04 7:32 PM, in article , "Ignoramus13229"
wrote:

Doug, it is always interesting to see these human stories of struggle
with weight. Just two things that I want to say, one, low carb and low
cal are not incompatible -- one could eat low calorie while at the
same time eating low carb, and two, bacon contains only 1/3 of its fat
as saturated, 2/3 of bacon fat is not saturated.

Also, you mentioned stable blood sugars in passing. If you are really
a diabetic or a pre-diabetic, keeping blood sugar stable is very
important, because unstable blood sugar causes terrible
complications. So, I would give this issue more than a passing
reference.

i

On 9/15/04 12:02 AM, in article , "Roger
Zoul" wrote:

Years at a time? If the objective is to low weight (the main reason for a
low cal diet) then there is no need to do it for years at a time.

That I would disagree with you. If the objective is to lose and also
*maintain* the low weight you have to stay on low-cal *forever*. Presumably
that is years. At least I hope so.

Perhaps
you need to lose the notion that low carb means high calorie. It's not true.

I can see a low-glycemic diet being low calorie. But I honestly cannot see a
really low-carb - like 30 gm or less - being low calorie. At least not
something liveable for the rest of your life, which is what I'm talking
about.

doug

On 9/15/04 12:02 AM, in article , "Roger
Zoul" wrote:

Years at a time? If the objective is to low weight (the main reason for a
low cal diet) then there is no need to do it for years at a time.

That I would disagree with you. If the objective is to lose and also
*maintain* the low weight you have to stay on low-cal *forever*. Presumably
that is years. At least I hope so.

Perhaps
you need to lose the notion that low carb means high calorie. It's not true.

I can see a low-glycemic diet being low calorie. But I honestly cannot see a
really low-carb - like 30 gm or less - being low calorie. At least not
something liveable for the rest of your life, which is what I'm talking
about.

doug

On 9/15/04 12:02 AM, in article , "Roger
Zoul" wrote:

Years at a time? If the objective is to low weight (the main reason for a
low cal diet) then there is no need to do it for years at a time.

That I would disagree with you. If the objective is to lose and also
*maintain* the low weight you have to stay on low-cal *forever*. Presumably
that is years. At least I hope so.

Perhaps
you need to lose the notion that low carb means high calorie. It's not true.

I can see a low-glycemic diet being low calorie. But I honestly cannot see a
really low-carb - like 30 gm or less - being low calorie. At least not
something liveable for the rest of your life, which is what I'm talking
about.

doug

On 9/15/04 12:39 AM, in article
, "Luna"
wrote:

Because with very low carbs the only foods left are higher fat, thus higher
calorie, foods.

doug


Not true. An egg, for example, generally has less than 100 calories.
Three eggs is a filling meal. A grilled chicken breast is low-fat, as are
many low-carb vegetables. I was easily able to stay under 1500 calories
and 20-30g carbs.

Maybe I should clarify. I would add "with reasonable variety and something
you can maintain for the rest of your life".

doug

On 9/15/04 12:39 AM, in article
, "Luna"
wrote:

Because with very low carbs the only foods left are higher fat, thus higher
calorie, foods.

doug


Not true. An egg, for example, generally has less than 100 calories.
Three eggs is a filling meal. A grilled chicken breast is low-fat, as are
many low-carb vegetables. I was easily able to stay under 1500 calories
and 20-30g carbs.

Maybe I should clarify. I would add "with reasonable variety and something
you can maintain for the rest of your life".

doug

On 9/15/04 12:39 AM, in article
, "Luna"
wrote:

Because with very low carbs the only foods left are higher fat, thus higher
calorie, foods.

doug


Not true. An egg, for example, generally has less than 100 calories.
Three eggs is a filling meal. A grilled chicken breast is low-fat, as are
many low-carb vegetables. I was easily able to stay under 1500 calories
and 20-30g carbs.

Maybe I should clarify. I would add "with reasonable variety and something
you can maintain for the rest of your life".

doug

On 9/15/04 1:00 AM, in article , "Roger
Zoul" wrote:

Not only that, but low cal eating on low carb is the best way to do it for
most, because of appetite suppression. Doing low cal on low fat would be a
nightmare for most.

This is actually a point I would dispute right now - at least for me. I even
mentioned it in my first (long) posting.

The first 4 or 5 days of "low cal, ignoring carbs" were *very* hard to stay
on. I did, in fact, have big food cravings. That is probably the reason I
fell off the wagon like 6 or 7 times since I got back in July and started
and stopped the diet and switched back and forth so much.

But after 5 days, appetite suppression very much like Atkins appetite
suppression seemed to kick in! I was surprised. I find myself eating things
like heat-up pasta or rice dishes (122 calories to 258 calories per meal) or
even a banana or ear of corn and they do NOT seem to be causing carb
cravings afterwards!

I am wondering now what the deal is.

I still don't eat large carb portions, as you can imagine from the calories
I mentioned above. The reason I avoid them is not because of the carbs but
because the "calories per volume" in something like rice just doesn't seem
worth it for the satisfaction received. So I seem to be naturally steering
away from *large* rice and pasta and other carb portions. For that same
reason I haven't eaten any bread. Two slices of toast at 150 calories (with
no butter - too caloric!) just doesn't sound filling enough to be worth the
calories.

So maybe that is it? Maybe by counting calories I am just naturally keeping
carbs down to a level that is preventing carb cravings?

doug

On 9/15/04 1:00 AM, in article , "Roger
Zoul" wrote:

Not only that, but low cal eating on low carb is the best way to do it for
most, because of appetite suppression. Doing low cal on low fat would be a
nightmare for most.

This is actually a point I would dispute right now - at least for me. I even
mentioned it in my first (long) posting.

The first 4 or 5 days of "low cal, ignoring carbs" were *very* hard to stay
on. I did, in fact, have big food cravings. That is probably the reason I
fell off the wagon like 6 or 7 times since I got back in July and started
and stopped the diet and switched back and forth so much.

But after 5 days, appetite suppression very much like Atkins appetite
suppression seemed to kick in! I was surprised. I find myself eating things
like heat-up pasta or rice dishes (122 calories to 258 calories per meal) or
even a banana or ear of corn and they do NOT seem to be causing carb
cravings afterwards!

I am wondering now what the deal is.

I still don't eat large carb portions, as you can imagine from the calories
I mentioned above. The reason I avoid them is not because of the carbs but
because the "calories per volume" in something like rice just doesn't seem
worth it for the satisfaction received. So I seem to be naturally steering
away from *large* rice and pasta and other carb portions. For that same
reason I haven't eaten any bread. Two slices of toast at 150 calories (with
no butter - too caloric!) just doesn't sound filling enough to be worth the
calories.

So maybe that is it? Maybe by counting calories I am just naturally keeping
carbs down to a level that is preventing carb cravings?

doug