[personal profile] kingginger

Anyone know if doing the Atkins diet / low carb diet is going to mess with a diabetes test?

Posted via LiveJournal app for iPhone.

Date: 2012-08-15 10:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] x-mass.livejournal.com
their are effectivly three types of test
1. a fasting blood sugar test
2. a test where they give you a glucose drink and see how you repsond
3. a blood test that can see how you have been responding over the previous few months

I have had a type 1 and type 3 both on low carb and my doctor never mentioned any issue

all I can say is that if you are on low carb the chances of having type 2 disabtes seem higly unlikely since
carbohydrates = insulin reaction leading to fat deposition

btw if you would like to know rather more about the science of low carb than Atkins Old Science Old Diet Counter-revolution book have a look at:
good calories, bad calories AKA the diet delusion by gary taubes
or for a shorter read
why we get fat which is also availble on you tube as a lecture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH9079LV4tY

Date: 2012-08-15 06:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kingginger.livejournal.com
Cool cheers...
I guess my test tomorrow is number 1...

Oh - better get my last brew for 24 hours in a minute aswell haha.

So - Type 2 diabetes means what? You get fat quicker from carbs or something?

Date: 2012-08-15 07:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] x-mass.livejournal.com
type 1 is that you cannot produce enough insulin typically from birth
type 2 is that you have damaged yourself so much by eating carbohydrtes that you cannot produce enough insulin anymore
the solution for type 2 is to cut all carbs

Date: 2012-08-16 08:33 am (UTC)
aegidian: (frubbly)
From: [personal profile] aegidian
Sorry to leap in with the 'somebody is wrong on the internet' intervention but...

Diabetes type 1.
-- characterised by the body not producing insulin. Despite being traditionally termed 'juvenile diabetes' it's still common for this to develop later in life.

Diabetes type 2.
-- characterised by the body developing insulin resistance (so that their naturally produced insulin isn't effective), and again, despite being called 'adult-onset diabetes' it can be developed at any age.

Carbohydrates are, of course, necessary in any diet (or you starve to death) and most diabetic patients benefit from reducing their carb intake. Slow-release complex carbs are often recommended, but all diabetic patients who suffer hypoglycaemic episodes should carry glucose in a rapidly absorbed form to treat hypos.

I developed type 1 diabetes at the age of 30 after my pancreas took a whacking from a severe bout of mononucleosis and stopped producing insulin. Still galls me when people say things like "that's not type 1, 'cos my cousin had type 1 since he was born".

Date: 2012-08-16 09:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] x-mass.livejournal.com
whilist i happily will accept what you say about diabetes

surely, since you are as far I am aware belive in science rather than unproven hypothesis, what you shoud have said about carbohydrates is:

carbohydrates are of course utterly unnecessary in any diet since we live on our fat stores during the night, and whilst our brain runs on glycogen this is derived from triglycerides and from protein in the muscles. It has been repeatedly shown in a varierty of societies that humans can live for years without any consumption of carbohydrates whatsoever. It has also been shown that societies that switch from a high fat to a high carboydrate diet also seen a marked increase in the incidence of diabetes

people with type 1 diabetes have difficulty making fat due to the under production of insulin, the principle mechanism of fat creation in the body.

Date: 2012-08-16 09:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] x-mass.livejournal.com
sorry, my dear, i am being deliberatly provactive

I can understand why you say what you've said because it's what you have been taught by the british diabetes association, my problem with them is that they simply have regurgitated the data they have been told without actually looking at the underlying scientific proof - which is non-existant! Or rather the conclusions often say one thing but the actual research data says something entirely different
This is all built on a hypothesis which despite repeated studies has NEVER been proved, or whose prove is based on craven bad science for example choosing data sets that support the hypothesis not the total data set availble

if you want to know more of what i speak go read "the diet delusion" or follow the links i mentioned earlier



September 2012


Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 08:03 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios