Ideal Weight? Does anyone have a goal or target weight??

[balo]

So I started my first fasting day on Monday and will continue to do so every week for a few months or maybe for the rest of the year.

 

I downloaded an app to my phone, MyFitnessPal. It's free and maybe the best tool to count calories, because the database is huge so you just search for any food and the calories is added to your daily schedule.

For my bodyweight and height I can eat up to 2500 calories on normal days and 500 calories on the fasting day.

The good thing about this app it gives you a good idea of what food you should eat more of and what you should avoid.

I just enjoyed a Ritter sport chocolate bar, 50 gr and 250 calories, you can eat 250 gr of fresh fruit to get the same calories. But really I don't care , as long as I average below 2500 daily and 500 on fasting day.

 

 

 

[dontoearth]

5 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

In what way is oatmeal bad?

I always thought is was a very healthy breakfast cereal and had a reducing effect on cholesterol. 

     If you follow the glycemic load literature or just in general want to keep sugar to a minimum instant oatmeal has about same insulin triggering effect as table sugar.

      The heavy processing of oatmeal makes it a poor choice for breakfast.  Oatmeal has been steam cooked, crushed, toasted, and then chopped.

       If you are looking for a good breakfast whole food eat steel cut oats.  You can soak them overnight in water or milk to avoid having to boil them 30 or 40 minutes in the morning.  Steel cut oats are just put thru a chopper once to break the hard oat outer shell.  No further processing.

        If you are eating the flavored instant oats its like diabetes death in a bowl with all the sugar and additives.

        If you are eating cereals that have been heavily processed in the morning and feel hungry for lunch that is the effect of the processed cereals triggering too much insulin response in your body. You are better off with eggs and bacon no bread no juice and black coffee.  You wont feel hungry until 1 or 2.

       I ate oatmeal for years thinking it was helping me and filling me up and could not figure out why I was so damned hungry mid morning and then found out that it was driving my daily hunger.   When I stopped having breakfast cereals and bread I started to make real progress on weight loss.  Today I just skip breakfast entirely.  The supermarket choices are toxic in my opinion.

        You can look up the various glycemic levels yourself.  I did post an article on this once somewhere in the forum.

        OH found it again!  Here is the article on glycemic load and oats of various processed varieties. 

https://www.nutritionletter.tufts.edu/issues/8_11/ask-experts/ask-tufts-experts_1204-1.html

          Somewhere else I found an article that said oatmeal reduced cholesterol only about 4 pts.  Not significant but I will leave finding that too someone else.

           BTW, quaker oats funds most of that research that proves oats are so good for you.  :)  Conflict of interest?

 

[tropo]

6 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

What is the name of the app you are using?

Hallelujah!! Someone actually wants to know. This is the second time I've discussed it and not one person has expressed the slightest interest.

 

It's free too! It's called WeighGrapher. http://www.weightgrapher.com/

 

I use it on my PC to input my wife's weight every day. She reached her goal weight and has maintained exactly that weight for 2 months, easily. What makes it so great is how you work with a trend line, so daily ups and downs don't cause any worry. If the trend line starts going up, you make a small effort to send it in the right direction again. Maintaining your weight is a lot easier than letting it slide and then having to make that superhuman effort to lose fat again. This makes it very easy.

[adammike]

28 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

     If you follow the glycemic load literature or just in general want to keep sugar to a minimum instant oatmeal has about same insulin triggering effect as table sugar.

      The heavy processing of oatmeal makes it a poor choice for breakfast.  Oatmeal has been steam cooked, crushed, toasted, and then chopped.

       If you are looking for a good breakfast whole food eat steel cut oats.  You can soak them overnight in water or milk to avoid having to boil them 30 or 40 minutes in the morning.  Steel cut oats are just put thru a chopper once to break the hard oat outer shell.  No further processing.

        If you are eating the flavored instant oats its like diabetes death in a bowl with all the sugar and additives.

        If you are eating cereals that have been heavily processed in the morning and feel hungry for lunch that is the effect of the processed cereals triggering too much insulin response in your body. You are better off with eggs and bacon no bread no juice and black coffee.  You wont feel hungry until 1 or 2.

       I ate oatmeal for years thinking it was helping me and filling me up and could not figure out why I was so damned hungry mid morning and then found out that it was driving my daily hunger.   When I stopped having breakfast cereals and bread I started to make real progress on weight loss.  Today I just skip breakfast entirely.  The supermarket choices are toxic in my opinion.

        You can look up the various glycemic levels yourself.  I did post an article on this once somewhere in the forum.

        OH found it again!  Here is the article on glycemic load and oats of various processed varieties. 

https://www.nutritionletter.tufts.edu/issues/8_11/ask-experts/ask-tufts-experts_1204-1.html

          Somewhere else I found an article that said oatmeal reduced cholesterol only about 4 pts.  Not significant but I will leave finding that too someone else.

           BTW, quaker oats funds most of that research that proves oats are so good for you.  :)  Conflict of interest?

 

What you say is true for all ultra processed food and breakfast cereals are one of the worst,but there is a difference when you are talking about oats and I and others are talking about oats,when I talk about oats I mean rolled oats and steel cut oats and when nutritionists talk about the benefits of oats they are not talking about instant oats.yes oats do remove cholesterol when it's in the bowels I believe. 

[dontoearth]

5 minutes ago, adammike said:

What you say is true for all ultra processed food and breakfast cereals are one of the worst,but there is a difference when you are talking about oats and I and others are talking about oats,when I talk about oats I mean rolled oats and steel cut oats and when nutritionists talk about the benefits of oats they are not talking about instant oats.yes oats do remove cholesterol when it's in the bowels I believe. 

      They need to be specific.  I have heard many diet experts toot the oatmeal which are rolled oats and they are a high glycemic food.  Rolled oats are oatmeal.   The rolled stands for the cooking, pressing, toasting and cutting.   It is a different product than steel cut oats.   And you can still buy oat grain and boil it yourself to an even more whole food product.

       The link I gave has a university expert explaining the differences very carefully. 

[dontoearth]

13 minutes ago, adammike said:

What you say is true for all ultra processed food and breakfast cereals are one of the worst,but there is a difference when you are talking about oats and I and others are talking about oats,when I talk about oats I mean rolled oats and steel cut oats and when nutritionists talk about the benefits of oats they are not talking about instant oats.yes oats do remove cholesterol when it's in the bowels I believe. 

     Oat bran is good for lowering cholesterol the rolled oats not so much.  The fiber in bran works exactly as you say it does.  Oat bran has significantly more fiber.

[tropo]

40 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

     If you follow the glycemic load literature or just in general want to keep sugar to a minimum instant oatmeal has about same insulin triggering effect as table sugar.

      The heavy processing of oatmeal makes it a poor choice for breakfast.  Oatmeal has been steam cooked, crushed, toasted, and then chopped.

       If you are looking for a good breakfast whole food eat steel cut oats.  You can soak them overnight in water or milk to avoid having to boil them 30 or 40 minutes in the morning.  Steel cut oats are just put thru a chopper once to break the hard oat outer shell.  No further processing.

        If you are eating the flavored instant oats its like diabetes death in a bowl with all the sugar and additives.

        If you are eating cereals that have been heavily processed in the morning and feel hungry for lunch that is the effect of the processed cereals triggering too much insulin response in your body. You are better off with eggs and bacon no bread no juice and black coffee.  You wont feel hungry until 1 or 2.

       I ate oatmeal for years thinking it was helping me and filling me up and could not figure out why I was so damned hungry mid morning and then found out that it was driving my daily hunger.   When I stopped having breakfast cereals and bread I started to make real progress on weight loss.  Today I just skip breakfast entirely.  The supermarket choices are toxic in my opinion.

        You can look up the various glycemic levels yourself.  I did post an article on this once somewhere in the forum.

        OH found it again!  Here is the article on glycemic load and oats of various processed varieties. 

https://www.nutritionletter.tufts.edu/issues/8_11/ask-experts/ask-tufts-experts_1204-1.html

          Somewhere else I found an article that said oatmeal reduced cholesterol only about 4 pts.  Not significant but I will leave finding that too someone else.

           BTW, quaker oats funds most of that research that proves oats are so good for you.  :)  Conflict of interest?

 

As a pre-diabetic, I have a very good idea of what I can eat and still keep my blood sugar levels under control. I often test my response to food rather than listening to theories. I'm not the slightest bit interested in glycemic index charts. I test. My last HbA1c test, a few days ago was 5.4%, which isn't too bad considering my waking FBS is 100 - 120 mg/dl.

 

I usually eat oats at night, not before breakfast. I can have a huge bowl of oats after a workout and have very low (normal) blood sugar levels. It won't matter if they are steel cut or rolled oats (I do prefer steel cut, but they aren't always easy to find). That really doesn't have any influence on blood sugar levels at all. It's the same deal with brown or white rice. There effect on blood sugar levels is very, very close. Just eat the one you prefer as there's nothing in it.

 

You don't eat your way to Type 2 diabetes. It's still a mystery, but many fat people have perfect blood sugar levels, and then people like me who have always taken care to eat "healthy" have problems. My wife's family in PI eat enormous quantities of white rice (not fully polished) and have normal blood sugar levels - go figure! I tested them all. One family of 2 adults and 2 small children go through 50kg of rice per 4 - 5 weeks. I know because I buy it LOL.

 

BTW, you can cook steel cut oats beautifully by bringing them to the boil, then putting them on a very low simmer for 20 minutes. There's no need to pre-soak them. I use an induction cooker. It takes about a minute to bring them to the boil on high heat, then I stick the timer on for 20 minutes at setting 1 with the lid on. There's no need to even attend them.

 

Your "diabetic death in a bowl" comment was funny. I've been eating classically bad foods since I was first diagnosed 13 years ago and I'm still alive and kicking. I still eat icecreams, cookies, chocolate, cakes and other processed comfort food and I still haven't progressed to full Type 2. I still need to enjoy life. The trick is to keep an eye on it and adjust accordingly. It's not a death sentence. It can be, but it doesn't have to be... Lots and lots of exercise is the key.

[tropo]

16 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

      They need to be specific.  I have heard many diet experts toot the oatmeal which are rolled oats and they are a high glycemic food.  Rolled oats are oatmeal.   The rolled stands for the cooking, pressing, toasting and cutting.   It is a different product than steel cut oats.   And you can still buy oat grain and boil it yourself to an even more whole food product.

       The link I gave has a university expert explaining the differences very carefully. 

Rolled oats are not processed at all. Steel-cut oats are just that - the oat grain is cut. Rolled oats are the oat grains rolled out flat. Quick cooking oats are rolled oats cut into pieces. The smaller the pieces the faster it will cook. It's like the difference between eating a slice of bread or bread crumbs.

 

Once they are cooked there is no difference in the effect on insulin release and/or blood sugar. It only affects the speed at which they can be cooked.

 

BTW, it's not insulin release that one must be concerned about with Type 2 diabetes, but insulin resistance.

[adammike]

2 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

      They need to be specific.  I have heard many diet experts toot the oatmeal which are rolled oats and they are a high glycemic food.  Rolled oats are oatmeal.   The rolled stands for the cooking, pressing, toasting and cutting.   It is a different product than steel cut oats.   And you can still buy oat grain and boil it yourself to an even more whole food product.

       The link I gave has a university expert explaining the differences very carefully. 

I use whole rolled oats and the important thing is to incorporate protein, cook with whole milk and or add nuts.i cook with water and add ground cinnamon and any nuts I have and use full fat yoghurt,if you incorporate some protein you should not get a dip.There is two things about the glycemic index the other is the glycemic load check it out at

www.health.harvard.edu

[adammike]

8 minutes ago, tropo said:

Rolled oats are not processed at all. Steel-cut oats are just that - the oat grain is cut. Rolled oats are the oat grains rolled out flat. Quick cooking oats are rolled oats cut into pieces. The smaller the pieces the faster it will cook. It's like the difference between eating a slice of bread or bread crumbs.

 

Once they are cooked there is no difference in the effect on insulin release and/or blood sugar. It only affects the speed at which they can be cooked.

 

BTW, it's not insulin release that one must be concerned about with Type 2 diabetes, but insulin resistance.

Quick cooking oats are pre cooked and as with most if not all breakfast foods they load them with sugar and artificial flavours.

[tropo]

4 minutes ago, adammike said:

I use whole rolled oats and the important thing is to incorporate protein, cook with whole milk and or add nuts.i cook with water and add ground cinnamon and any nuts I have and use full fat yoghurt,if you incorporate some protein you should not get a dip.There is two things about the glycemic index the other is the glycemic load check it out at

www.health.harvard.edu

All this talk about glycemic index and load. There's no need to complicate it. "Load" is just another word for "amount". Obviously, the more carbohydrates one consumes the more insulin will be released to handle it, and if one is insulin resistant, it will place a greater strain on the beta cells of the pancreas to produce enough insulin to lower the blood sugar.

[tropo]

6 minutes ago, adammike said:

Quick cooking oats are pre cooked and as with most if not all breakfast foods they load them with sugar and artificial flavours.

That depends on the quick cooking oats you get. Most quick cooking oats are not processed other than being finely chopped. You're getting the wrong ones if you're buying flavoured ones with added sugar.

 

Here's an example. There's nothing added.

 

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/australia-harvest-quick-cooking-oats-640602566

[dontoearth]

3 minutes ago, tropo said:

All this talk about glycemic index and load. There's no need to complicate it. "Load" is just another word for "amount". Obviously, the more carbohydrates one consumes the more insulin will be released to handle it, and if one is insulin resistant, it will place a greater strain on the beta cells of the pancreas to produce enough insulin to lower the blood sugar.

   Load is the actual amount absorbed.  Quite different than the index.  You seem to be doing well but I really do take the glycemic load to heart after my own poor experiences with years of oatmeal.  I hold it responsible for my blossoming weight!  Getting rid of it was indeed the best thing I ever did with my new eating habits.

[tropo]

1 minute ago, dontoearth said:

   Load is the actual amount absorbed.  Quite different than the index.  You seem to be doing well but I really do take the glycemic load to heart after my own poor experiences with years of oatmeal.  I hold it responsible for my blossoming weight!  Getting rid of it was indeed the best thing I ever did with my new eating habits.

Load is just the amount consumed, as I said. Of course, if the food has a higher index, then the same amount eaten will provide more sugar to the blood. All carbs will be absorbed no matter what the food. There's no way around that.

 

I'm only doing well because I test foods to see how I handle them and have a more scientific approach to the problem than reading charts and listening to advice from people who most likely have never tested their individual response to food. I have years and years of data from testing my response to meals. I don't stop at a single test. I usually take pre-meal and 1-hour and 2-hour post meal readings.

 

Here's a good one. Yesterday I ate "diabetic death on a plate". It was cake with sweetened aerosol cream added on top with some ripe kiwi fruit and strawberries thrown in.

 

You'd think that would spike my blood sugar. Hell, even I thought it would. Surprise, surprise. I took 3 readings. 45 minutes (usually the peak after eating) - 108, 1-hour was  126, 2-hour was 103mg/dl. That's lower than my FBS yesterday of 118mg/dl. Go figure!

 

Even more bizarre - and these are results from THIS week...

I went to Sabushi Buffet (my wife loves it) 2 days ago. That meant eating a huge load of sushi (white rice) and everything else as one does at buffets, including ice cream and sweetened drinks. My 2 hour PP was only 108 mg/dl. That was about what I woke up with that day. Go figure that one. High glycemic index AND load, yet perfectly normal blood sugar levels.

What am I getting at, you may ask? I'm suggesting people who really want to know what food they can eat should invest in a glucometer and test, test, test. Also get an HbA1c test a couple of times a year (350 baht - no fasting required). The way your body handles food may surprise you. The reality of it all may not be what you expect from what you've read in books.

 

 

 

 

[dontoearth]

22 minutes ago, tropo said:

Load is just the amount consumed, as I said. Of course, if the food has a higher index, then the same amount eaten will provide more sugar to the blood. All carbs will be absorbed no matter what the food. There's no way around that.

 

I'm only doing well because I test foods to see how I handle them and have a more scientific approach to the problem than reading charts and listening to advice from people who most likely have never tested their individual response to food. I have years and years of data from testing my response to meals. I don't stop at a single test. I usually take pre-meal and 1-hour and 2-hour post meal readings.

 

Here's a good one. Yesterday I ate "diabetic death on a plate". It was cake with sweetened aerosol cream added on top with some ripe kiwi fruit and strawberries thrown in.

 

You'd think that would spike my blood sugar. Hell, even I thought it would. Surprise, surprise. I took 3 readings. 45 minutes (usually the peak after eating) - 108, 1-hour was  126, 2-hour was 103mg/dl. That's lower than my FBS yesterday of 118mg/dl. Go figure!

 

Even more bizarre - and these are results from THIS week...

I went to Sabushi Buffet (my wife loves it) 2 days ago. That meant eating a huge load of sushi (white rice) and everything else as one does at buffets, including ice cream and sweetened drinks. My 2 hour PP was only 108 mg/dl. That was about what I woke up with that day. Go figure that one. High glycemic index AND load, yet perfectly normal blood sugar levels.

What am I getting at, you may ask? I'm suggesting people who really want to know what food they can eat should invest in a glucometer and test, test, test. Also get an HbA1c test a couple of times a year (350 baht - no fasting required). The way your body handles food may surprise you. The reality of it all may not be what you expect from what you've read in books.

 

 

 

 

   No.   Index is the amount of sugar.  Load is the amount of sugar  that will actually be absorbed by the body.   The body is complex and science is just accepting that it is a processing plant onto itself.  It can reject portions of food and change the chemical structure of foods.   The big news from this second rating is that there are high index foods that don't have anywhere near as high loads.  It is not based on volume or amount eaten.  It is based on amount absorbed into the body.

     However, these are lab results and individuals are going to vary.  Some by a lot.   I am glad you take the time to carefully check out foods and their effect on your body.   I truly wish many of my friends would do this do this also.   Since they won't the glycemic load tables are all that they have.  This is a very recent new scale and not all foods are listed yet.  I think the ground breaking book on this research is only a few years old.  I gave the book to a friend that has Type II Diabetes but still insist on going to Pizza Company every week.  I am hoping he reads it!

    I am glad you are doing well.  I think the exercise has a lot to do with it.  That may very well mute the effect of foods on your body.

    We all have to realize on here that 'our way' may not be the best way for others.  

     I don't have any problems with blood sugar or insulin.  My entire journey was listening to my own body and finally getting some answers.  We all should do that.  I was able to tell that my hunger was driven by simple carbs high in glycemic load.  I have cut them out as much as possible.  I do eat the complex ones that doctors kept swearing put too much sugar in us like fresh raw fruit.  I do not experienced the same ill effect I had with oatmeal and cereals.  

     There are now doctors (real medical) that are treating type II with raw whole foods diets including lots of fruit.  There is even a doctor doing treatment with starches giving the patients unlimited potatoes.   His name is McDougall he is all over youtube.  

      What we were told about all of this before seems to have not been validated by the new science.   As I have said we are making new discoveries and they are going to make lots of people very uncomfortable.  What we knew as facts are going to be overturned.

        I look forward to this myself.

    

[tropo]

4 hours ago, dontoearth said:

   No.   Index is the amount of sugar.  Load is the amount of sugar  that will actually be absorbed by the body.   The body is complex and science is just accepting that it is a processing plant onto itself.  It can reject portions of food and change the chemical structure of foods.   The big news from this second rating is that there are high index foods that don't have anywhere near as high loads.  It is not based on volume or amount eaten.  It is based on amount absorbed into the body.

     However, these are lab results and individuals are going to vary.  Some by a lot.   I am glad you take the time to carefully check out foods and their effect on your body.   I truly wish many of my friends would do this do this also.   Since they won't the glycemic load tables are all that they have.  This is a very recent new scale and not all foods are listed yet.  I think the ground breaking book on this research is only a few years old.  I gave the book to a friend that has Type II Diabetes but still insist on going to Pizza Company every week.  I am hoping he reads it!

    I am glad you are doing well.  I think the exercise has a lot to do with it.  That may very well mute the effect of foods on your body.

    We all have to realize on here that 'our way' may not be the best way for others.  

     I don't have any problems with blood sugar or insulin.  My entire journey was listening to my own body and finally getting some answers.  We all should do that.  I was able to tell that my hunger was driven by simple carbs high in glycemic load.  I have cut them out as much as possible.  I do eat the complex ones that doctors kept swearing put too much sugar in us like fresh raw fruit.  I do not experienced the same ill effect I had with oatmeal and cereals.  

     There are now doctors (real medical) that are treating type II with raw whole foods diets including lots of fruit.  There is even a doctor doing treatment with starches giving the patients unlimited potatoes.   His name is McDougall he is all over youtube.  

      What we were told about all of this before seems to have not been validated by the new science.   As I have said we are making new discoveries and they are going to make lots of people very uncomfortable.  What we knew as facts are going to be overturned.

        I look forward to this myself.

    

No (back at you). The Glycemic Index (GI) determines how fast the carbohydrates in the food are digested. Obviously, complex carbohydrates such as starch will digest more slowly than say pure sugar. Glycemic Load (GL) is the carbohydrate content of the food. Some foods may be less dense and not provide a high carb content per serving despite the actual carbs in the food having a high GI - therefore providing a lower GL. 

 ALL the carbs you eat will be absorbed. There are no magic carbs on that index that somehow are not absorbed. Wouldn't that be great - ice cream, chocolate and cakes that aren't absorbed LOL. Until you find that magic food if you eat 100 grams of carbohydrates, 100 grams of carbohydrates or around 400 calories will be absorbed. If you eat a food with a lower glycemic index and load factor, it will be digested more slowly and your BG spike won't be as pronounced. Of course, you're never going to know this unless you test.

At 45 minutes to 1 hour after eating your blood sugar readings will usually be at maximum (unless you have very poor digestion), that's the reason for the 1 hour PP testing. i.e. to see the highest level it reaches. I ALWAYS aim to determine the highest level it will rise. It doesn't matter what food on the glycemic scale you eat, all the sugar will reach your blood. How fast your insulin stores the sugar is the difference between a healthy person and a diabetic. 

You say you don't have any problems with blood sugar. What tests have you done to come to this conclusion? Most blood tests done around town are for the FBS. Sometimes tests will include an HbA1c, but very few people test their postprandial responses to food. It is quite possible to have normal FBS and HbA1c yet spike badly after meals.

 

Doctors are not very strict with what they call "normal". For example, they will not use the word "prediabetic" as it freaks people out and upsets health insurance companies. They prefer to use the term "insulin resistant", but it's the same. They won't use the words diabetic until you are well and truly diabetic.

Regarding what you said: "My entire journey was listening to my own body and finally getting some answers.  We all should do that."

It might well work with some things, but in reference to blood sugar, nothing could be further from the truth. Absolutely do not try to determine your blood sugar by "listening to your body". You can feel very low blood sugar, but not high blood sugar. The first sign of being diabetic is being very thirsty and drinking a lot. Before you get to that stage you won't know a thing. By that stage (constant levels over 180 mg/dl) you are in a very bad state. People at that stage have already suffered a lot of cellular damage. I don't have a clue what my blood sugar levels are going on feel unless I'm too low, which is very rare. Diabetes type 2 is an insidious disease which is usually caught far too late. Probably decades too late in the worst cases. 

If you don't test it's like being up a river without a paddle. You're guessing,  and as you admitted, there's a huge difference between people, so GL and GI tables just don't cut it.

 

It seems you have the idea I'm out of date. As a person with impaired sugar metabolism myself, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm also searching for the latest information. I'm also active on diabetic forums, which is a good place to learn how things are in the real world, by learning from others with the same condition.

 

 

[dontoearth]

3 hours ago, tropo said:

. Obviously, complex carbohydrates such as starch will digest more slowly than say pure sugar. Glycemic Load (GL) is the carbohydrate content of the food. Some foods may be less dense and not provide a high carb content per serving despite the actual carbs in the food having a high GI - therefore providing a lower GL. 
 ALL the carbs you eat will be absorbed. There are no magic carbs on that index that somehow are not absorbed. 

      Have you heard of the strange japanese yam that they make the noodles out of that doesn't digest?  It taste awful I was never able to choke it down.  It is a good example of food not confirming well to our equations.

 

3 hours ago, tropo said:

You say you don't have any problems with blood sugar. What tests have you done to come to this conclusion? Most blood tests done around town are for the FBS. Sometimes tests will include an HbA1c, but very few people test their postprandial responses to food. It is quite possible to have normal FBS and HbA1c yet spike badly after meals.

    Yes I have had the HbA1C everytime I have had a blood panel.  Once of twice a year. It is normal.  It has always been normal.

 

3 hours ago, tropo said:

 

Doctors are not very strict with what they call "normal". For example, they will not use the word "prediabetic" as it freaks people out and upsets health insurance companies. They prefer to use the term "insulin resistant", but it's the same. They won't use the words diabetic until you are well and truly diabetic.

     Doctors in the USA love the term prediabetic and use it often and lovingly as they are now allowed to prescribe lots of pill form insulin upping their doctors visits and prescription fees.  The US pushes those that are insured toward disease not away from it.  BTW!  Many EU countries have found that treating people at this stage decreases life expectancy and increases secondary diseases.  

 

3 hours ago, tropo said:

Regarding what you said: "My entire journey was listening to my own body and finally getting some answers.  We all should do that."

If you don't test it's like being up a river without a paddle. You're guessing,  and as you admitted, there's a huge difference between people, so GL and GI tables just don't cut it.

 

It seems you have the idea I'm out of date. As a person with impaired sugar metabolism myself, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm also searching for the latest information. I'm also active on diabetic forums, 

 

 

      I don't see any reason for me to test.  I do wish my friends with problems would test.   Various scientific medical tables we often argue about like BMI fit the vast majority.  But there are exceptions and you seem to be one of them and I believe it is your devotion to exercise.  If more of the population did such we would be in a much better state of health.

     I was thinking of all the bad advice over the years from the AMA and the American Diabetic association which the doctors offering the newer diet treatments often jokingly refer to as "doctor assisted suicide."

       I was not making any personal reference to you.  I am just amazed at the flood of new science and how it is really conflicting with our base knowledge and preconceived ideas from older science. 

       I am from the generation that was taught how good white bread was for you.  Wonder bread builds your body 12 important ways. (from the commercial)  How a bowl of various processed carbohydrate chucks was necessary EACH AND EVERY morning for good health.  I think you can see why I might be so very skeptical of our previous science base?

[balo]

Oat meal does not make me more hungry , I do not buy the processed ready oat meals.  I buy the German oat Hahne , 50 baht I think. 

 

But there is one thing that oat does to me , my stomach reacts too quickly after an oat meal, so I will probably end up in the toilet after a few hours.  Maybe good for constipation , but since I do not normally have a problem with that I just end up in the toilet more often than I should. 

  

[tropo]

9 hours ago, dontoearth said:

      Have you heard of the strange japanese yam that they make the noodles out of that doesn't digest?  It taste awful I was never able to choke it down.  It is a good example of food not confirming well to our equations.

 

    Yes I have had the HbA1C everytime I have had a blood panel.  Once of twice a year. It is normal.  It has always been normal.

 

     Doctors in the USA love the term prediabetic and use it often and lovingly as they are now allowed to prescribe lots of pill form insulin upping their doctors visits and prescription fees.  The US pushes those that are insured toward disease not away from it.  BTW!  Many EU countries have found that treating people at this stage decreases life expectancy and increases secondary diseases.  

 

      I don't see any reason for me to test.  I do wish my friends with problems would test.   Various scientific medical tables we often argue about like BMI fit the vast majority.  But there are exceptions and you seem to be one of them and I believe it is your devotion to exercise.  If more of the population did such we would be in a much better state of health.

     I was thinking of all the bad advice over the years from the AMA and the American Diabetic association which the doctors offering the newer diet treatments often jokingly refer to as "doctor assisted suicide."

       I was not making any personal reference to you.  I am just amazed at the flood of new science and how it is really conflicting with our base knowledge and preconceived ideas from older science. 

       I am from the generation that was taught how good white bread was for you.  Wonder bread builds your body 12 important ways. (from the commercial)  How a bowl of various processed carbohydrate chucks was necessary EACH AND EVERY morning for good health.  I think you can see why I might be so very skeptical of our previous science base?

We also can't digest cellulose, but if you can't digest it it's not really food, but roughage. You'll lose a lot of weight eating grass LOL.

 

I'm pretty sure that the GL and GI tables only cover food where the carbohydrates are 100% digestible. If I'm wrong, please name the food that can't be digested.

 

"You don't see any reason to test".

 

I'll give you some reasons.

 

My HbA1c is normal, my PP readings are normal yet I have elevated FBS. I'm no exception. The Internet is swamped with people wondering why they have high PP readings yet low HbA1c. One reason, the red blood cells don't last as long in diabetics, giving artificially low HbA1c levels.

 

The best marker for diabetes is high PP measurements, not FBS or HbA1c.

 

I don't know about doctors using "prediabetes" in the US. "Insulin resistance" is the term of choice and more appropriate. "Prediabetic" indicates you're on your way to diabetes. That's not always true. "Impaired glucose metabolism" is an even better term.

 

I'll explain why. If I go low carb I can show perfectly normal FBS and HbA1c. If a doctor tested me he'd think I'm completely normal. He wouldn't have a clue that I have insulin resistance yet I've had it for at least 15 years. Everybody that is interested in their health should test. A lot of people are scared to prick their fingers, I get it.

 

 

 

 

 

[dontoearth]

On 2/23/2018 at 5:02 PM, tropo said:

We also can't digest cellulose, but if you can't digest it it's not really food, but roughage. You'll lose a lot of weight eating grass LOL.

 

I'm pretty sure that the GL and GI tables only cover food where the carbohydrates are 100% digestible. If I'm wrong, please name the food that can't be digested.

 

"You don't see any reason to test".

 

I'll give you some reasons.

 

My HbA1c is normal, my PP readings are normal yet I have elevated FBS. I'm no exception. The Internet is swamped with people wondering why they have high PP readings yet low HbA1c. One reason, the red blood cells don't last as long in diabetics, giving artificially low HbA1c levels.

 

The best marker for diabetes is high PP measurements, not FBS or HbA1c.

 

I don't know about doctors using "prediabetes" in the US. "Insulin resistance" is the term of choice and more appropriate. "Prediabetic" indicates you're on your way to diabetes. That's not always true. "Impaired glucose metabolism" is an even better term.

 

I'll explain why. If I go low carb I can show perfectly normal FBS and HbA1c. If a doctor tested me he'd think I'm completely normal. He wouldn't have a clue that I have insulin resistance yet I've had it for at least 15 years. Everybody that is interested in their health should test. A lot of people are scared to prick their fingers, I get it.

 

 

 

 

 

     I have normal Hba1c and FBS.   I have never done PP.  It would have been interesting to do when I was weeding out foods in my diet.  I think I could have learned a lot at that time.  Those foods like simple carbs are gone now so I have already completed that portion of my changes.

      I will keep it in mind at some future time.

 

[tropo]

1 hour ago, dontoearth said:

     I have normal Hba1c and FBS.   I have never done PP.  It would have been interesting to do when I was weeding out foods in my diet.  I think I could have learned a lot at that time.  Those foods like simple carbs are gone now so I have already completed that portion of my changes.

      I will keep it in mind at some future time.

 

One of the more interesting things about testing meals is that you're not usually testing single foods, but combinations thereof, which alters how fast they raise blood sugar. A food that is considered bad on its own can work well in combination with another. Protein and fat will slow down the absorption of carbohydrates. That's another reason why GI/GL tables are rather useless in the real world where people normally eat foods in combinations of macronutrients. That being the case, you can easily slow down high GI/GL foods, effectively making your meal equivalent to low GI/GL.

 

Here's a specific example. If you at a very sweet dessert (ice cream, chocolate, cake etc) after a big meal with lots of protein, your blood sugar may not spike. All the carbohydrates will eventually be absorbed though. I've had huge buffet meals in the past with lots of high sugar dessert eaten at the end and had very low PP numbers. LOL> I've even taken my glucometer to restaurants to check.

 

Ultimately, if you still have perfectly normal glucose tolerance, you really shouldn't be too concerned about the GI/GL index. The concern should be that all the carbohydrates will be absorbed, whether they are high or low GI. The total amount is more of a concern to control fat accumulation. There's no such thing as "diabetic death on a plate". If there was I would be long dead. If I can enjoy sugary desserts from time to time, you can too. You have to live a little too.

 

I understand that you haven't tested PP. To do that you need to invest in your own glucometer and most people won't unless they are already diabetic. That's a shame. If you did it might stop you from panicking when you eat certain "bad" (but delicious) foods.

[dontoearth]

6 hours ago, tropo said:

One of the more interesting things about testing meals is that you're not usually testing single foods, but combinations thereof, which alters how fast they raise blood sugar. A food that is considered bad on its own can work well in combination with another. Protein and fat will slow down the absorption of carbohydrates. That's another reason why GI/GL tables are rather useless in the real world where people normally eat foods in combinations of macronutrients. That being the case, you can easily slow down high GI/GL foods, effectively making your meal equivalent to low GI/GL.

 

Here's a specific example. If you at a very sweet dessert (ice cream, chocolate, cake etc) after a big meal with lots of protein, your blood sugar may not spike. All the carbohydrates will eventually be absorbed though. I've had huge buffet meals in the past with lots of high sugar dessert eaten at the end and had very low PP numbers. LOL> I've even taken my glucometer to restaurants to check.

 

Ultimately, if you still have perfectly normal glucose tolerance, you really shouldn't be too concerned about the GI/GL index. The concern should be that all the carbohydrates will be absorbed, whether they are high or low GI. The total amount is more of a concern to control fat accumulation. There's no such thing as "diabetic death on a plate". If there was I would be long dead. If I can enjoy sugary desserts from time to time, you can too. You have to live a little too.

 

I understand that you haven't tested PP. To do that you need to invest in your own glucometer and most people won't unless they are already diabetic. That's a shame. If you did it might stop you from panicking when you eat certain "bad" (but delicious) foods.

     Because of my changing diet lots of food no longer tempts me at all.  Something like ice cream gives me heart burn later.  It is amazing as you start to get rid of some food in your diet that you fasat loose any desire to taste it and on a binge day have strange problems digesting it.

      And you are correct cellulose and fiber don't digest.  That is the whole reason for two rankings such as glucose load and net carbs.  That is basically what they are giving you a rating for in the first place!  And yes they count as food.  Food that you are advised to get more of by almost everyone.  Our deficient fiber diet is causing all sorts of diseases.

       I am aware that vinegar on white potatoes does mute the glycemic load.  I have heard of other combinations.  BTW vinegar is an ingredient u use if you make your own potato salad.  An argument for getting some good recipes and getting into the kitchen.  

[tropo]

7 hours ago, dontoearth said:

     Because of my changing diet lots of food no longer tempts me at all.  Something like ice cream gives me heart burn later.  It is amazing as you start to get rid of some food in your diet that you fasat loose any desire to taste it and on a binge day have strange problems digesting it.

      And you are correct cellulose and fiber don't digest.  That is the whole reason for two rankings such as glucose load and net carbs.  That is basically what they are giving you a rating for in the first place!  And yes they count as food.  Food that you are advised to get more of by almost everyone.  Our deficient fiber diet is causing all sorts of diseases.

       I am aware that vinegar on white potatoes does mute the glycemic load.  I have heard of other combinations.  BTW vinegar is an ingredient u use if you make your own potato salad.  An argument for getting some good recipes and getting into the kitchen.  

I consume apple cider vinegar every day, first thing in the morning. Apparently, it is supposed to lower your FBS.  

 

I used to get heartburn after certain foods. I no longer suffer from that since I started consuming kefir back in 2011. I know you avoid heartburn by avoiding certain foods, but heartburn indicates a problem with your digestive system that kefir will fix. 

 

I do agree that if you don't eat processed junk food you find it easier to resist.

[Justfine]

On 25/02/2018 at 6:16 PM, tropo said:

I consume apple cider vinegar every day, first thing in the morning. Apparently, it is supposed to lower your FBS.  

 

I used to get heartburn after certain foods. I no longer suffer from that since I started consuming kefir back in 2011. I know you avoid heartburn by avoiding certain foods, but heartburn indicates a problem with your digestive system that kefir will fix. 

 

I do agree that if you don't eat processed junk food you find it easier to resist.

Tastes like vomit though. Foul stuff.

[tropo]

10 minutes ago, Justfine said:

Tastes like vomit though. Foul stuff.

Apple Cider vinegar tastes like vinegar. Don't drink it straight, as it's too acidic. I put 25ml in one full glass of water. If that's still too strong, add more water.

 

[Justfine]

1 minute ago, tropo said:

Apple Cider vinegar tastes like vinegar. Don't drink it straight, as it's too acidic. I put 25ml in one full glass of water. If that's still too strong, add more water.

 

Tastes worse like that. Have to drink more. Straight and little is the only way i can drink it. Awful stuff. Questionable whether its as good as the claims.

[tropo]

17 minutes ago, Justfine said:

Tastes worse like that. Have to drink more. Straight and little is the only way i can drink it. Awful stuff. Questionable whether its as good as the claims.

If it is that hard to take I wouldn't bother.

 

I started taking it about 6 months ago. I honestly can't notice any benefits. I certainly didn't notice any blood sugar benefits. If you're taking a lot of stuff it's really hard to tell what is working and what isn't. My supply is nearly finished so I'm going to take a break. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that it is beneficial. If you have any, please send it this way.

 

[Justfine]

I tried it 20 years ago

Tried it again now

 

Havent noticed any benefits

Never finished more than 1/3 of bottle though

 

Havent read credible science on it. Only websites talking it up.

 

Cutting down on carbs my blood pressure went from high to perfect

 

Eating walnuts I notice my energy levels are more consistent

 

But ACV I doubt does anything much. Maybe it helps reflux short term but i rarely get that.

 

I take LSA mix in a shake for fibre

 

 

 

 

[tropo]

17 hours ago, Justfine said:

I tried it 20 years ago

Tried it again now

 

Havent noticed any benefits

Never finished more than 1/3 of bottle though

 

Havent read credible science on it. Only websites talking it up.

 

Cutting down on carbs my blood pressure went from high to perfect

 

Eating walnuts I notice my energy levels are more consistent

 

But ACV I doubt does anything much. Maybe it helps reflux short term but i rarely get that.

 

I take LSA mix in a shake for fibre

 

5

The main reason why I started using it in the first place was for blood sugar control. There has been one scientific double-blind study on its effect on fasting blood sugar (FBS) if taken at night. I haven't noticed any difference myself, but my FBS can vary quite a bit, more than the small percentage improvement that the study showed. I didn't take it before bed though because I take too much other stuff before bed and the vinegar wouldn't work well with it.