Discussion in 'Parents of Children with Type 1' started by suej, Feb 15, 2015.
Couldn't have said it better myself. :wink:
Thank you Alan, my research really seems to chime with yours, and I also think a lower carb diet more achievable than a very low carb diet, and I agree that 2 fuel sources may be an advantage.
And Susan, thank you for your encouragement. At the moment I am cautiously optimistic that a lower carb diet makes for less acting and reacting to sugars, and he is eating more veggies than before, and I am even learning a bit of baking muffins with almond flour that has had the thumbs up from both sons (10 carbs for medium apple cinnamon muffin). And I am extending my general meal repertoire so no one is complaining. My husband has got interested too, and is beginning to lose his beer boep (Afrikaans word for tummy)
PS. In searching the site for magic pancakes yesterday which I did not find I did come across a 2012 thread (I only found forum in 2013) that was about breakfast, and so many posters were experiencing exactly what I do, carbs at breakfast hard to cover without spike due to insulin resistance at that time of day, and many sharing that they keep carbs to about 20, so I am not sure why lower carbs seems to be so contentious? The rest of the day with lower carbs merely an extension of that principle.
This is the website for the product. It's fairly easy for us to find, even living in a rural area. It's been quite a while since we've used it, but IIRC we ended up bolusing for 5g per pancake. Of course YDMV. The pancakes are light but with a course texture.
Gary Taubes and Peter Attia are also huge in the LCHF diet field. They have raised millions to begin testing their theory that LCHF diet is nutritionally better (you can read more on their NUsi website), but for all their claims - there is no actual proof that this diet is better than eating carbs. Here is what I find interesting: if you read interviews with them, neither one of them actually puts their CHILDREN on these diets - their own children eat a substantial amount of carbs. Food for thought.
Short on time at the moment but thought these images were interesting, & an excellent example of how our thoughts on nutrition have changed.
Penultimate sentence says it all.
Or maybe not?
There are a lot of diets/lifestyles out there. There are many ways to eat low carb just as there are many ways to eat vegan or any other category you might name.
Gary Taubes does not force his kids to eat the way he eats and people use that as proof that he must not really believe in his plan? If he did make his kids eat that way he would be blamed for being a bad parent. He could not win either way.
But is Gary Taubes even representative of all low carb eating plans? There are a lot of low carb plans out there, some for weight loss (like Atkins) and others for lifestyle purposes. Gary's approach is just one of many. And to top it off he is shall we say extreme; eating on a typical day just meat and eggs cutting out numerous whole food groups. Could it be that he is a bad example of low carb?
If we take a look at someone else - say "Elite runner and personal chef Devon Crosby Helms, 30, [who] felt "fantastic" for the first six months of her vegan diet. However, because she was already gluten-, bean-, and soy-free (due to allergies), nixing meat was the tipping point to poor health. Suffering from "overwhelming and constant fatigue, muscle loss, and weight gain," Crosby Helms' doctor diagnosed her with hypo-thyroidism, adrenal fatigue, and anemia. With limited food choices, "being vegan created a great deal of anxiety," Helms eventually returned to eating meat and felt much better.
Helms would also be an extreme example of a vegan eating plan and I would not suggest that her failure means that no one should avoid meat. She was just too extreme.
What if the problem is not eating low carb or low fat but making poor food choices in broader ways? To date no one has been able to prove that a particular ratio of fats to carbs to protein is superior to another? (though I personally believe that one plan is better). So the American Heart Associations guidelines to eat only a certain percentage of fat is no more proven than another's advice to eat only a certain percentage of carbs. And each group has their own studies to back up their case - to a degree.
So what would happen if we all did what is obvious and agreed upon by all groups? Cut out excess sugar, eat as little trans fats as you possibly can, don't ingest poisonous chemicals or foods teaming with dirt or dangerous germs? In short eat the highest quality foods you can. If you cut out 90% of the sugar, trans fats, foods laced with chemicals the FDA already knows to be less than ideal, and foods prepared in unsanitary conditions what would your diet look like?
I bet it would not look much like Atkins nor would it be vegan. I also bet it would have at least half the carbs that a typical american diet has once you cut out the donuts and fried fast foods (trans fats), most cakes and cookies (sugar), and the foods that come from factory farms or cafo operations (dangerous chemicals and unsanitary conditions).
If you ate the best quality foods you could find, grown in safe ways, prepared in sanitary conditions you would still have meats and vegetables and dairy and fruit would you be happy? Do you really need your pink slime packed in ammonia? Wouldn't you be much happier if you saw your butcher grab a fresh slab of meat and run it through the grinder so you knew that it did not come from over a hundred different mistreated cows and perhaps include entrails and e coli?
Can't do all that? Perhaps if you started slowly and only cut out trans fats as your first step?
Thank you, Michelle'smum for the fascinating glimpse into nutritional guidelines over the ages, and I will try to order the Bob's mill flour on Amazon - they don't retail in South Africa.
Lakeman, I agree, I think the lower carb lifestyle is really moving back towards whole unprocessed foods and away from junk, it does require more cooking though with 2 teenage boys in the house
Rgcainmd and shannong, I am not sure I agree with you about Gary Taubes and his kids, for example, my older son, just turned 16 sees no reason to cut his carbs and I am fine with that. He will benefit from the general minimal junk food approach that we have always had (chocolate excepting) and he is not on a high carb diet - could be that in total he had less carbs than his brother as Ben does need to eat/drink sugary stuff for a PL or low. From my reading it seems that there is a wide spectrum, partly genetically determined, of how insulin resistant people are, and many of us become more insulin resistant over time, and at present Jamie is a skinny growing adolescent and but like his dad and me, when he hits 50 and begins to carry a spare tyre, he may change the way he eats. The kids that are overweight from a young age probably fall into the more insulin resistant spectrum. I think even Ben is insulin sensitive, just can't make it on his own, as his TDD is about 35-40u and he weighs 48kg - (105lb) and is hitting puberty in a big way. I really think there is a no one size fits all and that it will change over one's lifetime, and should not be rigid. Ben has a reason to eat lower carb's, even if it is just to make matching insulin doses a bit easier so that the roller coaster is smoother and needs less thinking about. Still a work in progress - had a horrible unusual and unexplained high to 14 last night, so did not get much sleep...
There is no question that there are foods which make the diabetes much harder to handle, and every family will have their own particular list of worst ones.
Many families choose to reduce or eliminate certain foods from their diet for that reason. For example in our family, soda pop was banned from the household after DD was diagnosed. Other families will eliminate certain breakfast cereals, or pizza, or ice cream, whatever.
Where it gets more controversial is when there is talk of strongly reducing or eliminating whole classes of food (ie. carbohydrates) in order to make the D more easy to manage. Carbs come in all shapes and sizes, and in my view it makes no sense to try to reduce/eliminate them all. By all means attack the consumption of processed carbs in sweets and junk foods, and go for a switch from white flour to whole grain and white rice to brown rice etc.
But there are many good carbs out there that really should be part of our diets - fresh fruit, vegetables, whole grains etc. As long as those are "in", no worries. But that is where I personally draw the line. Any dietary advice that suggests good carbs should be reduced/eliminated should be steered clear of. :cwds:
Well said, wilf!
Wow, that's a trip down memory lane!
Anyhow, we've seen the benefits of DD's desire to eat healthy foods persist to this day. She does not avoid carbs. She loves fresh fruit, fresh veggies, and soups and pasta dishes with lots of good veggies in them. Still also a big fan of fruit smoothies. And she does have a love of chocolate which predates the diabetes diagnosis and which is just fine.
Point being, we don't want the desire for "good numbers" to be driving our childrens' dietary choices to the exclusion of anything else. But a really healthy diet will generally make the D easier to manage. :cwds:
But vegetarians eliminate a whole class of food....meat. They don't receive the judgement that low carbers do, despite the fact that as stated several times throughout this discussion, not everyone who low carbs believes in completely avoiding carbs. Actually, that belief shows just how narrow the popular view is, because vegetables have carbs too.
Call me old fashioned, but to me the 3 classes of food are:
When DD went vegetarian she didn't drop any of these essential classes of food, she just reduced her intake of proteins and fats by eliminating meat. We made sure that there were good additions to the protein and fat part of her diet to make up for that.
But diets that in effect declare that carbohydrates are the enemy are nonsensical tripe.
As I said earlier, it is important to distinguish between "good" carbs and "bad" carbs. I have no issue with avoiding bad carbs - I try to do that myself. But any diet that involves limiting or avoiding good carbs should itself be avoided.. :cwds:
I can see everyones reaction to the labels it is tricky. One of the things that in my 45 years as a T1 that has always bugged me was the reluctance in the general public to recognize a carb as a carb. But frankly we all as T1s or parents of T1s know is that some carbs are different, some carbs are processed differently in our bodies (as are fats and proteins). So if I am reading a 40 on my BG meter I do not eat 15 grams of lettuce carbs or even 14 apple juice carbs but I go straight for those skittles or glucose tabs cause my body converts those the fastest to the sugar I need. However it drove me nuts for years that parents of preschool kids were pushing apple juice as healthy and not a glass of milk or glass of lemonade with maybe half the sugars I am not a fan of eliminating all proteins or all fats or all carbs, so if you go on a diet that says no carbs at all, i.e. no vegs, no fruits, etc I would not be a fan, or a diet that said no protein whatever the source, or no fats whatever the source, etc. we all get it All the people on this site are very intelligent and get it. Sadly my take over the years is that it may be the air pollution, or the genes or stuff we are not monitoring or can not control that is really the "devil" Ali
Yes two fuel sources are certainly what are bodies are designed to eat. Carbs are excellent fuel sources for intense activity (and recovering from lows) and fats a re excellent fuel sources for prolonged energy (and protecting the brain from the effects of lows). That being said if one eats a diet that is both high in carbs AND high in fats there will just be too many calories. The American government has decided (based and old faulty research saying that saturated fats are bad and even going further to decide that all fats can be bad) to promote a high carb diet that is low in fat. They effectively eschew fats in order to reduce overall calorie intake (which results in a lot of people being hungry all the time and having will power problems from meal to meal). The Paleo/Primal people eschew all the more popular carbs (grains and starchy vegetables) which also reduces overall calorie intake but results in avoiding foods that make one stand out from the crowd.
IMO the early research on fat is wrong and we do need to eat healthy fats which means natural fats from sources that are not polluted with chemicals, pesticides, antibiotics, etc. One should also eliminate factory created fats like soybean oils, peanut oils, corn oil... If you do this you will probably not be eating too much fat and the fat you do eat will come from clean and natural sources. In the same way if you eliminate unhealthy carbs which are calorie heavy but lacking in nutrients, and eliminate or reduce carbs that come from grasses because really people are not designed to eat any of the grasses, which are high in phytates and lectins, then you will probably not be eating too many carbs and the carbs you do eat will come from clean and natural sources. Now you have a diet which is lower in both fat and carbs than the typical western diet. Oddly enough even though it is lower in both fat and carbs compared to a western diet it is not called the "moderate diet" but is actually called a low carb diet. It is most certainly not a diet that does not contain carbs and one can pretty much eat all the colored vegetables one would want to eat. Does one eat too much fat? Well as soon as you stop spreading your fat on bread, deep frying potatoes in soybean oil, or making cake frosting from Crisco then much of your fat will be used to saute vegetables - I doubt many will eat too much fat that way either. In fact in many of the blogs I read a common concern is how to increase fat in one's diet. They do come up with some creative ways to increase fat: like coconut oil in coffee (tried it and did not like it, I just stick to cream, yummy cream) or grilled salmon skin (sounded yummy but when I actually tried it I decided I will stick to salmon skin that is still on the salmon flesh).
In any case it sure is refreshing to follow a diet that includes yummy salmon steaks, cream wherever I want it (like as an Alfredo on salmon), as much grass fed steak as I can afford which comes straight from the farm, ice cream I make at home with no weird ingredients from milk I also got straight from the farm, a huge variety of vegetables made in a huge variety of ways, an infinite array of salads, and the occasional warm potato chips or french fries that I cut and fried myself in farm fresh fats (farmer's market) that just happen to be high in vitamin D (1000 IU per tablespoon), has zero trans fats, is low in PUFAs, is heat stable, is sustainable, local, and has the best flavor for fried foods that you will ever have. I tell you until you have had a home made still warm potato chip you don't know a good chip.:smile:
Yea, the coconut oil in coffee was a no go for me. Maybe if I liked sweet coffee it would be ok, but I just don't like sweet drinks...except my wine.
I've been trying to add more salmon (we eat a variety of fish, at least twice per week), but it hasn't been a popular food here. If you know of any good recipes that can tone down the fishy taste, I'd love to try them.
I do not know where you live. I live in Seattle so have very fresh salmon available. Alaskan King is less fishy tasting and you want to get it either very fresh or frozen right off the boats. Garlic and butter and then roasting or broiling, baking on a cedar plank, served with a hollandaise sauce, or fruit or vegetable salsa is great. The trick is the quality of the fish. If you have a fish market go there as opposed to the chain stores. The other trick is to not overcook, there is a fine line with salmon, we like ours cooked through not raw internally but just barely cooked through. Most restaurants in this area go for very raw in the middle on the salmon, that is the current "style" so we always have to tell them how we want it. Good luck, I love love salmon. ali
I love a good salmon too. But since my kids don't love it and most fish is high in mercury we just skip it. I think the best way to take care of the taste is to use an appropriate marinade containing lemon or milk. Then grill it over an open flame. If you pan fry it use some garlic in the oil and start with the skin side first. That being said wild salmon from Alaska is probably the fish with the least amount of mercury of whatever you could buy. There are counterfeits but if you trust your source then that's the way to go. Farm raised white fish isn't even worth eating - just stick with grass fed beef. I hope it goes without saying that farm raised fish from other countries might be downright dangerous. If you can't afford the beef then store bought chicken with the skin removed is next best.
Separate names with a comma.