Alan Moorman wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:29:53 -0500, "Priscilla H. Ballou"
> > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Alan Moorman > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:04:18 -0500, Alice Faber
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article
>,
>>> > Alan Moorman > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:39:10 -0500, Alice Faber
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >In article
>,
>>> >> > Alan Moorman > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:18:13 -0500, Alice Faber
>>> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >The sample breakfasts were designed around 2
starch
>>> >> >> >exchanges, 1 fruit exchange, and 1 milk exchange.
There's
>>> >> >> >also 1 fat exchange, but no protein. That's 60
g/carbs.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >> Well, I'm not sure what the problem is.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Perhaps I should go back on the exchange diet and
see how it
>>> >> >> affects my bG levels?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> All I know is that, when I used it, I lost weight
and was
>>> >> >> eating healthily. . .
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I've snipped down to illustrate what the problem
with the
>>> >> >"canned" Eli Lilly exchange diet sheet is: 60 grams
of
>>> >> >carbohydrate for breakfast. Most type 2s who test
have found
>>> >> >that they can't tolerate anywhere near that amount
of
>>> >> >carbohydrate for breakfast, even those who might not
later in
>>> >> >the day.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I don't consider a diet that raises my blood sugar
from a
>>> >> >fasting level of 90-100 mg/dl to a peak of 240 mg/dl
to be a
>>> >> >healthy diet. I don't care how healthy whole grains
are. Too
>>> >> >many of them, and it doesn't take much to get to
"too many",
>>> >> >isn't healthy, for me, though they might be for
folks who don't
>>> >> >have broken metabolisms.
>>> >>
>>> >> Well, I don't know if it does that for me,
>>> >>
>>> >> but, if that peak is gone 2 hours after eating, is
that bad?
>>> >
>>> >Even the ADA goals for 1 hour peaks, that many of us
think are too
>>> >permissive, specify under 180 mg/dl at 1 hour and under
140 mg/dl
>>> >at 2 hours. I would prefer to be under 140 mg/dl at 1
hour and
>>> >back to my pre-meal number at 2 hours. I've seen
citations
>>> >suggesting that peripheral damage begins at 140 mg/dl.
Obviously,
>>> >this is incremental damage, so I don't think I hurt my
long-term
>>> >prognosis by that oatmeal experiment, but I sure
wouldn't want to
>>> >do it on a regular basis.
>>> >>
>>> >> Isn't that what happens to non-diabetic people?
>>> >
>>> >Actually, if I'm remembering research on
Jenny-the-Bean's web
>>> >site, not. Even under a much more intense carb-load,
non-diabetics
>>> >might hit something like 120 mg/dl. I'm at work now, so
I can't
>>> >check.
>>> >>
>>> >> ...or what?
>>> >>
>>> >> Alan Moorman
>>>
>>> Well, you may be right..... Someone was posting a
survey
>>> which mentioned that "over 140 causing damage" thing,
but it
>>> also said that the length of time over 140 could be OK,
in
>>> that the beta cells would recover OK, or, it could be
too
>>> long, and they wouldn't.
>>>
>>> I don't think they mentioned where the breaking point
was
>>> between "OK" and "too long".
>>>
>>> I think I've been arguing this largely because I think
too
>>> many people jump to too many conclusions, and
over-simplify
>>> complex situations regarding diet and diabetes.
>>>
>>> Somehow, people suddenly decide not to eat carbs, for
>>> example
>>
>>Who? Citations please.
>>
>>> -- regardless of the fact that our bodies NEED some
>>> carbs.
>>
>>Again, citations please. Our bodies do NOT need carbs.
If you mean
>>we need glucose, well we can get glucose from protein.
>>
>>> They don't seem to understand that low-carbs, and
>>> the right carbs would probably be healthier than none at
>>> all.
>>
>>Again, kindly name these people who advocate eating no
foods
>>containing carbohydrates.
>>
>>> I'm not accusing you of this! But, I see SO many posts
in
>>> these news groups where people are going off the deep
end
>>> regarding diet, that it has become a sore-point for me!
>>
>>Please provide a google groups reference to one of these
posts.
>>Drunken Bob doesn't count.
>>
>>> I guess I over-react, sometimes!
>>
>>Sure looks like it.
>>
>>Priscilla
>
> All you have to do is hang around these diabetes and
> nutrition and cooking news groups for a year and you'll
see
> it keep cropping up from poor misguided people who are
> trying to lose weight, or whatever is on their little
minds.
>
> Don't need no steenkin' cites.
>
> Alan

well I have been hangin around the diabetes groups for eight
years, and have never seen anyone but drunken Bob "advocate"
no carbs. Everyone else carbs in varying degrees. Most eat
*mainly* low carb, nutrition-packed vegetables over useless
starches. Researching proper nutrition isn't hard and
despite a person's diet not conforming to your own personal
likes, most would be eating what they need. It is more than
possible to eat very well as well as control bg's and lose
or maintain weight.