[Sketch'd]

I have moved up to two Metformin a day and the numbers have come down a little - I'm no longer testing 11 ish in the morning; it's usually 9.5 or a little higher. Apparently it's working.

I have also been documenting what I am eating every day... and discovered that all forms of pasta and rice seem to result in a 5-point or more spike. So less and less carbs for me. Joy!

Meeting with the Doc on Wed. to go over results so far.

What do you do about hunger cravings? I am trying to keep within the carb guideline that the dietitian established, but a person can only eat so many veggies to fill up. Do you have suggestions for filling snacks? Also finding it difficult to transition to a higher carb lunch than supper (I don't know why it's so difficult - I guess I'm craving carbs more at suppertime?)

Also, is there a trick to jabbing your finger? Mine have been getting sore, and I find that some fingers are more sensitive than others. I have been taking a day off from testing when they get really sensitive, but I don't know if that's a good idea or not.

 

[breezeonby]

I have moved up to two Metformin a day and the numbers have come down a little - I'm no longer testing 11 ish in the morning; it's usually 9.5 or a little higher. Apparently it's working.

I have also been documenting what I am eating every day... and discovered that all forms of pasta and rice seem to result in a 5-point or more spike. So less and less carbs for me. Joy!

Meeting with the Doc on Wed. to go over results so far.

What do you do about hunger cravings? I am trying to keep within the carb guideline that the dietitian established, but a person can only eat so many veggies to fill up. Do you have suggestions for filling snacks? Also finding it difficult to transition to a higher carb lunch than supper (I don't know why it's so difficult - I guess I'm craving carbs more at suppertime?)

Also, is there a trick to jabbing your finger? Mine have been getting sore, and I find that some fingers are more sensitive than others. I have been taking a day off from testing when they get really sensitive, but I don't know if that's a good idea or not.

Hunger cravings...what kind of carbs? Is it sweet or salty? You just might need to take the time to move more carbs to suppertime, it should take about a month. NO, test on alternate sites. Don't stop testing, skin is tougher than you think, even using your thumbs. Try and lance in the side of your fingers. Try using a new lancet everythime that you lance, the lancet is sharp.

 

[Shanny]

Sketch'd? How many carbs has she got you eating every day? Methinks the dietitian's guidelines are far too loose, and if you build your meals around protein & fats, you'll see your numbers drop like a rock. For whatever misguided reasons, most docs/dietitians/diabetes educators recommend tons of carbs, and I know you hate to hear this, but it's absolute murder for us who are serious about controlling our blood sugar.

Open the search box above and search for low carb and/or high fat . . . you'll find a lot people who learned the hard way - as you are learning - that the pasta/rice/bread/potatoes/cereal/etc., does nothing but raise our numbers. Once you stop eating these foods, the hunger/craving subsides by itself. Even milk and anything made with grains (wheat/oats/corn/rice/etc) will wreak havoc on our blood sugar.

The only carbs I eat are high-fiber vegetables for regularity. Asparagus, artichokes, celery, broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, leafy greens, etc.

Keep browsing our threads & you'll begin to see how we manage and thrive on diets like this . . . check out the recipes board & see what terrific meals we enjoy WITHOUT carbs!

Two years ago if you'd told me I'd be loving my low-carb high-fat way of eating, I'd have booked you a padded cell. But I'm loving my low-carb high-fat way of eating. There are definitely worse things than having to eat your fill of things like bacon/eggs or prime rib/caesar salad or hot wings/bleu cheese dip! I keep deviled eggs, hot wings, cheese & beef sticks always handy for snacks, and I eat something every couple hours.

If cholesterol is a concern, look what this "high-fat" eating did for my husband's lipids profile! http://www.diabetesforum.com/diabetes-forum-lounge/4481-test-results-non-diabetic.html#post31322

 

[Sketch'd]

That's good to know! I know it's a time thing, but it's still tough.

I'm to work at:
15 - breakfast
45-60 - lunch
15- Snack
30-45 - Supper
15 - Snack.

Even I think this is too many. I'm finding it hard to have breakfast. Lunch is usually 30; a snack is usually around 15; Supper is more often than not 45; and I only snack after supper if I'm feeling particularly hungry.

I have noticed that the more regularly I eat, the hungrier that I seem to be getting. This morning I woke up because I was physically hungry, not necessarily ready to get up.

 

[Sketch'd]

Also, it's usually salty cravings of late.

And, Shanny, I saw those results. Incredible!

I went to a Shrove Tuesday pancake supper a little while ago and ended up stopping for wings on the way home because I had two small pancakes at the supper and knew that I couldn't have any more!

I may have been told this, but I don't remember: How can I differentiate between carbs that digest quickly and those that digest slowly?

 

[breezeonby]

Use the glycemic index.

 

[Shanny]

Avoiding the "white" foods will help you steer clear of the fast-acting carbs . . . anything made with white flour or sugar is out. Any rice/pasta/potatoes/bread/etc., is out. These are the foods that hit fast and hard. The high-fiber foods take longer to digest, so they don't hit so bad. Just use your meter an hour after you eat, and if what you ate sends your bg over 7.7, then don't eat that anymore.

 

[Guest]

you're doing well there Sketch'd I eat carbs myself with every meal. I've always had a low fat diet generally. My LDL increased when I increased meat intake. I'm now in a position where I have to have low fat diet too due to functional dyspepsia. Fat slows stomach digestion down apparently... so I need to be careful as I need to get my stomach to digest properly.
@Shanny... this guy that did the high fat vs carbs study... did he look at what it does to the digestion by any chance? I'm thinking if it's known to slow it down... that's not good for a diabetic. We need to have our nerves/muscles functioning at optimum level... not sluggish.
Look under 'diet' and the 'fat' paragraph (other sites saying the same):
http://www.medicinenet.com/dyspepsia/page7.htm
Even though fat is not known to cause dyspepsia as such... I wouldn't think slowing down your stomach muscles would necessarily be a good idea anyhow.

 

[beefy]

That's good to know! I know it's a time thing, but it's still tough.

I'm to work at:
15 - breakfast
45-60 - lunch
15- Snack
30-45 - Supper
15 - Snack.

Even I think this is too many. I'm finding it hard to have breakfast. Lunch is usually 30; a snack is usually around 15; Supper is more often than not 45; and I only snack after supper if I'm feeling particularly hungry.

I have noticed that the more regularly I eat, the hungrier that I seem to be getting. This morning I woke up because I was physically hungry, not necessarily ready to get up.

Hey Skech'd,

Even if you're my size (a 6'3", 250lb guy) the above is probably too much carb. (If I do my math right, it adds up to 150g a carb at a maximum)... To get my BG under better control I've had cut my carbs to <120g per day, and that's not much for a guy my size.

What I've found also is the more I've cut starchy carbs, the less I crave them.

Regarding the dietitian ... your dietitian is likely receiving the same guidelines as mine (being Canadian also) and is likely trying to get you to eat too many carbs, like mine was. When I explained my diet to her, she was adamant I eat more carbs. I added a few more in as per her suggestion, and my BG's went back up, so I stopped following her advice and started doing what works for me. I literally have printed off research to support my position the next time I see her, roflmao.

I now eat 6x a day, roughly every 3-3.5 hours. I get about 75% of my carbs for the day in the first three meals, and lower my carb intake as the day goes on.

I also used to have very high fasting readings, but they've slowly gotten better. If I wake up at around 4:30am they're in the 4.x range, and somewhere around there I liver dump... but that dump has slowly reduced so that after a good night sleep I've gone from morning readings of 10's to 9's to 8's to 7's and now I'm usually in the 5's after a good nights sleep. I have my last meal of the day immediately before bed now, and for me that's seemed to help my morning fasting readings.

The other thing I'm convinced has helped is daily exercise. I exercise 6 days a week, without fail. Although I'm still overweight, I know the metabolic increase from exercise is helping.

Good luck!

 

[Wink]

you're doing well there Sketch'd I eat carbs myself with every meal. I've always had a low fat diet generally. My LDL increased when I increased meat intake. I'm now in a position where I have to have low fat diet too due to functional dyspepsia. Fat slows stomach digestion down apparently... so I need to be careful as I need to get my stomach to digest properly.
@Shanny... this guy that did the high fat vs carbs study... did he look at what it does to the digestion by any chance? I'm thinking if it's known to slow it down... that's not good for a diabetic. We need to have our nerves/muscles functioning at optimum level... not sluggish.
Look under 'diet' and the 'fat' paragraph (other sites saying the same):
Indigestion (Dyspepsia, Upset Stomach) Symptoms, Causes, Treatment - How is dyspepsia (indigestion) treated on MedicineNet
Even though fat is not known to cause dyspepsia as such... I wouldn't think slowing down your stomach muscles would necessarily be a good idea anyhow.

The article is specifically aimed ONLY at those with dyspepsia and still it is filled with "weak evidence" "may" "possibly" and really only suggests that low fat may reduce the effects of dyspepsia. The article makes no suggestions at all with respect to those without dyspepsia. Again, a reminder that what works for one will not work for everyone. Slower digestion maybe optimum for many or even most people - "sluggish" is not synonymous with slower.

I'll grant you that with a better search you can come up with numerous articles bashing fat and many will be from respected medical sources. On the other hand, if you take a balanced approach you will also find that a search of "low fat myth" will result in tons of information showing that the original demonization of fat was done for political reasons and that it has never been medically established that fat is bad for you. There is abundant recent research showing that fats are not evil.

For 30+ years we have been following the low-fat high-carb diet presented to us, as well as reducing smoking rates, increasing exercise rates, etc. and the end result is we are fatter with more heart disease, more diabetes, more asthma, etc. Where are the positive effects?

 

[Shanny]

(apologies, Vicky . . . we were posting at the same time & hit many of the same points. I didn't see your post until mine went up!)

Dietary fat doesn't slow down the digestion process - what it does is slow the ABSORPTION of the carbs.

The argument for fats in our diets has been to refute the long-standing politically-charged propaganda that fats increase the risk of heart disease. This challenge is not the work of only one person - there are many researchers who denounce the notion, and have found much to prove that the original premise was not only mistaken, but that the evidence was deliberately manipulated & mishandled (look up Ansel Keyes for more on the original lie that has permeated the conventional medical wisdom for the last 60 years).

How this relates to exceptionally complicated circumstances like yours, Mep, doesn't normally come into the debate. Let's don't get caught up in arguing that the exception proves the rule. Your medical issues are a major exception, no doubt about it, and I think we would be making a serious mistake by insisting that all the other studies are wrong, just because they don't apply to you.

 

[beefy]

oh, and one more thing... if your Dr. or Dietitian tells you a BG reading of 10.0 is "fine for a diabetic", that's a load of crap based on bad science promoted by drug companies.

The IDF (International Diabetes Federation) has clearly stated in their guidelines that the maximum 2hr post-prandial readings should be 7.8 (140).

They also target A1c readings of < 6.5%, but state that lower is better, if possible. Read up on their recommendations here: IDF Post-Meal-Guidelines.

Ron Raab (past president of IDF and president of 'Insulin for Life') also wrote a great article on why he adopted a low-carb diet here.

 

[Jen]

Excellent essay - thanks for posting it.

Jen

 

[jwags]

I also agree that is way too many carbs. What most of us find is the diets we were given were way too many carbs. There is no one diet that is good for all diabetics. Use your bg meter after meals to determine what foods are better. As you have found out pasta and rice spike very high. Also things like bread, cereal, potatoes, corn, oatmeal, and wheat flour spike very high. Most of us have found alternate ways to cook. We still make fantastic meals and eat a lot but we don't use the ingredients that spike us. I make my own pancakes and waffles withoug flour or sugar and even after eating a stack am still under 100. It takes a while to get used to. I found I had to up my metformin to 2550 mg before I saw signifcantly lower bgs under 100.

 

[moon]

I found I had to up my metformin to 2550 mg before I saw signifcantly lower bgs under 100.

What dosage were you taking beforehand?

 

[Guest]

(apologies, Vicky . . . we were posting at the same time & hit many of the same points. I didn't see your post until mine went up!)

Dietary fat doesn't slow down the digestion process - what it does is slow the ABSORPTION of the carbs.

The argument for fats in our diets has been to refute the long-standing politically-charged propaganda that fats increase the risk of heart disease. This challenge is not the work of only one person - there are many researchers who denounce the notion, and have found much to prove that the original premise was not only mistaken, but that the evidence was deliberately manipulated & mishandled (look up Ansel Keyes for more on the original lie that has permeated the conventional medical wisdom for the last 60 years).

How this relates to exceptionally complicated circumstances like yours, Mep, doesn't normally come into the debate. Let's don't get caught up in arguing that the exception proves the rule. Your medical issues are a major exception, no doubt about it, and I think we would be making a serious mistake by insisting that all the other studies are wrong, just because they don't apply to you.

yeah thanks Shanny.
You have to do what works for you. Considering what I'm going through I was just posing the question as to whether it was any impact on your nerves/muscles long term at all considering fat is not broken down the same way as carbs in your digestive system? But of course my thoughts are based on my experiences and not necessarily true for everyone as you say. Has this study proven there is no long term effects on your stomach is what I was asking. But I'm rather cautious these days as you would understand and I think the question I raised could be asked by anyone else who is concerned... you have to admit that it is one study you're referring to and believe to be true and not the general consesus as you've pointed out. The theory of that study doesn't work for me... my LDL did increase when I increased my meat intake... it may be that it doesn't work for everyone either. Maybe that has to do with underlying digestive problems too?

 

[Shanny]

Not sure why you think there is only one study or author or proponent of the good fats issue. Many studies over the years have confronted the untruth of Keys' theory, and these are only the biggest ones:

Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial
Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial
The truth about saturated fat

Keep in mind what I mentioned earlier, that the original subject was cholesterol levels, statin use, and whether dietary fat increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Whatever effect this has on digestion is not the focus. What these subsequent studies confirm is that the original low-fat propaganda was deliberately warped, fostering decades of erroneous practices. In the general population, and in the diabetic population specifically, dietary fats are beneficial.

Conversely, there are other studies that seem to confirm the theories that it is dietary carbohydrate, not fat, that increases the risks of CHD.

 

[Sketch'd]

Thanks everyone for the incredible advice! It's giving me some things to think about... which is fantastic!

Can someone please explain to me why it's better to test the BG only one hour after eating instead of the recommended two? Will I be giving my doctor completely useless information when I take my charts in on Wed.?

Thanks Beefy. Having another Canadian around to sympathize about Canadian-trained dietitians is awesome. That was not a meeting I was looking forward to, and I'm certainly not looking forward to the next one because I know we already differ on the no-fat and low-fat versus real, natural fats debate.

Right now exercise is a pain in the behind. Literally. I fell last year on the ice and injured my lower spine, so I'm afraid to venture outdoors at the moment. In the spring (the real one) I will be walking to my summer class every day (30 minutes there and 30 minutes home) - so I'm looking forward to that energy boost.

 

[Shanny]

The one-hour test will show how high you spiked on what you ate . . . it's always good to know the bad news first, right?! The two-hour test is to see if your levels are dropping back down near the pre-meal reading - which they hopefully are. So in my mind, the one-hour test is of greater importance . . . I need to know how high I spike so I can avoid it in the future!