Re: best carb foods for diabetics
<<What can I eat that would be
satisfying and filling and not be bad for my blood sugar?>>
I think the best and safest carb foods for diabetics are the following:
lightly-steamed or RAW VEGETABLES (eat skin if organic [org.])– green
beans (contain insulin), celery; avocado, artichoke, garlic, onion;
mushrooms (shiitake, maitake); LEAFY GREENS (non-iceburg lettuce, spinach,
parsley, watercress, dandelion, kale, seaweed/sea vegetables); steamed
cabbage, cruciferous vegetables & asparagus; SPROUTS
GREEN SALAD (w/olive oil, red-wine vinegar & lemon juice; no other
dressing)
fruits (high-fiber, low-sugar, low-glycemic)–berries (organic
strawberries, org. cherries [anthocyanins], blueberries, raspberries);
grapefruit, lemon, tomato, org. cucumber, plums, prunes, nonsweet apples,
pears, peaches
beans/legumes-lentils, lima, & sprouted beans, TEMPEH
whole grains–oat & rice bran, buckwheat, oats, rye; Ezekiel/Manna sprouted
bread
I welcome any suggested changes re: this list.
March 26th, 2006 at 9:01 am
Leonard, I would leave the "whole grains–oat & rice bran, buckwheat,
oats, rye" out of the safe list. It’s not about low glycemic but
total carb loading; the loading due to an "overt" carb dish is very
high. Carb loading contributes to oxidation through glycation, and
also contributes to acid pH of the lymph and extracellular matrix,
which means less toxin purging and less oxygen delivery to the cells.
Less oxygen delivery raises cancer risk, which is already high enough
in diabetics that you don’t want to tempt the fates. There are lots
of foods one can eat without using the high-carb foods at all, low
glycemic or not.
March 27th, 2006 at 1:10 am
Thanks for the feedback, Duncan.
I agree about not eating too many carbs at 1 meal.
I’ve several places about oats being good for people w/diabetes (and I think
read 1 place about buckwheat being beneficial), and I thought rye (and
particularly rice bran) was relatively low in carbs and high in fiber. I do
think that raw, low-carb vegetables are generally much better than grains
though.
Leonard
Leonard, I would leave the "whole grains–oat & rice bran, buckwheat,
oats, rye" out of the safe list. It’s not about low glycemic but
total carb loading; the loading due to an "overt" carb dish is very
high. Carb loading contributes to oxidation through glycation, and
also contributes to acid pH of the lymph and extracellular matrix,
which means less toxin purging and less oxygen delivery to the cells.
Less oxygen delivery raises cancer risk, which is already high enough
in diabetics that you don’t want to tempt the fates. There are lots
of foods one can eat without using the high-carb foods at all, low
March 27th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
I totally agree with Duncan here:
The "official" word on carbs from FDA or ADA is so off the rails on this
that it is causing diabetes rates to increase very alarmingly, such as
by 50% in a few years.
It’s because the carbs they recommend are just what diabetics do not
need. that food pyramid is practically upside-down - the bread and
starch should be missing from a diabetic pyramid, and there should be
plenty of good fats and green and red veg instead.
> the loading due to an "overt" carb dish is very
> high.
It pays to count total carbs - it’s not really about glycemic index.
A low glycemic index for a high carb amount needs just as much insulin
from a damaged diabetic pancreas as that number of carbs in any other
form :-))
> Carb loading contributes to oxidation through glycation,
Glycation is the number one diabetes injury - caused by sugar in the
blood physically causing damaging cross-links to stiffen cell walls
(preventing toxins leaving and nutrients entering and it makes them
sticky as well so they clog easily (tiny blood vessels especially).
This glycation also produces cancer precursors… the list of nasty
things goes on an on - all because of too much sugar in the blood.
So controlling the sugar at all times - not just now and then in the day
- is really of paramount importance.
This is so important, and so not promoted by those who should know
better in FDA/ADA. (Of course the big grain producers don’t see it that
way - General Mills, Monsanto etc - and have you noticed how much these
companies plug the "new food pyramid" in TV ads?)
It is possible to retrain our bodies to crave healthier options like
protein, green and red veg and good fats, rather than the carbs which
are not essential nutrients in the first place.
On my eating plan, grains are only there if they provide significant
fiber benefit. So for example I use pure rice bran but not rice. (I use
it with flavourings to thicken sauces, use it as cereal now and then,
mix it into vegetable juices from cooking - along with spices and herbs
- to put on hot veg etc)
Namaste,
March 28th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
I apologise for missing the "bran" keyword before I posted. Rice Bran
in my opinion is one of the top five supernutrients and it doesn’t
have much carb in it at all. You could probably make a similar
argument for any of the brans, but you couldn’t really make that
argument stick for any whole grain, farmed or gathered, as they are
all storage vehicles for starch.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:58 am
<<What can I eat that would be
satisfying and filling and not be bad for my blood sugar?>>
I think the best and safest carb foods for diabetics are the following:
lightly-steamed or RAW VEGETABLES (eat skin if organic [org.])– green
beans (contain insulin), celery; avocado, artichoke, garlic, onion;
mushrooms (shiitake, maitake); LEAFY GREENS (non-iceburg lettuce, spinach,
parsley, watercress, dandelion, kale, seaweed/sea vegetables); steamed
cabbage, cruciferous vegetables & asparagus; SPROUTS
GREEN SALAD (w/olive oil, red-wine vinegar & lemon juice; no other
dressing)
fruits (high-fiber, low-sugar, low-glycemic)–berries (organic
strawberries, org. cherries [anthocyanins], blueberries, raspberries);
grapefruit, lemon, tomato, org. cucumber, plums, prunes, nonsweet apples,
pears, peaches
beans/legumes-lentils, lima, & sprouted beans, TEMPEH
whole grains–oat & rice bran, buckwheat, oats, rye; Ezekiel/Manna sprouted
bread
I welcome any suggested changes re: this list.
Leonard
March 30th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
True.
> You could probably make a similar
> argument for any of the brans,
Not true :-)))
What bran is especially a bad idea.
March 31st, 2006 at 3:31 am
none.
It ALL turns into sugar.
Eat greenb veg, red veg and nuts instead:-))
April 1st, 2006 at 8:26 am
That’s true - and blueberries were on my list when I did not have diabetes.
But there are no fruits that come without sugar, and it doesn’t help to
eat sugar "because there is fiber with it".
> 2) fruits, at least the dark ones, have phytochemicals and antioxidants
> and such that are good for us.
True - but they come with sugar. There are lots of foods with
phytonutrients, antioxidants and the like that are not also sugar
loaded. For a great book on what’s in which food in this line - check
out Dr Nicholas Perricone’s latest book "The Perricone Promise".
So you can get the good antioxidants etc without the sugar, provided you
avoid fruit.
> So my answer is to eat fruit, but not so much at a time that your 1
> hour after eating blood sugar level is higher than 140.
This means your blood sugar probably goes up near 140 at least three
times a day, which means the cells in your body are regularly and
frequently bathed in very glucose at levels that cause glycation - for
several hours a day. At levels over 110, significant glycation occurs,
and if repeated often, then diabetic complications do follow.
So your set point of 140 is not one that will prevent diabetes
complications. That is where we differ and that is why I avoid fruit.
My set point is 110, not 140.
The reason is that I am currently in the process of reversing
complications that led me to a diagnosis of diabetes in the first place.
Those can not be reversed with glucose spikes of 140 on a regular basis
if at all.
All depends what your goals are.
I get the various special phytonutrients including antioxidants from
spinach, onion, garlic, turmeric, red wine, curry, parsley flakes, kale,
red peppers, broccosprouts, beet greens, dandelions, green beans,
chives, peppermint, thyme, oregano, ginger, coriander, tomato, collards,
green tea, white tea, lemon juice, and nuts. All without the sugar:
For example walnuts contain the same polyphenol antioxidant as you
get in pomegranates and raspberries.
I’m not saying I don’t miss the fruit that tastes so good - I just
consciously choose to get those phytonutrients without the sugar while I
have diabetes.
Pink seafood pigment is also powerful - in salmon and shrimp.
(as long as it is the natural and not food colouring version!!!)
Namaste,
April 2nd, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Andrew, generally speaking, fiber doesn’t count as carbs because it
does not increase BG. Technically it is made of long chain or
branched chain carbs but mammalian digestive enzymes do not break it
down.
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Extremely:-))
However I often eat zero carb meals, and that is not starvation:-)))
Initially when I wanted my base down I ate about 4g carbs a day - later
extended to 12g and now perhaps use up to 24g max per day. I have had to
learn what to eat to feel satisfied and what to eat to get balanced
nutrients without carbs - a long learning curve but I put it on project
status to meet my goals - and I am willing to eat odd sounding meals
(turns out I like them).
Weight loss is a major goal for me too - I’ve lost 75 lbs but have
another 30 to go.
I have a long lasting insulin in the fridge because my doctor wanted me
to use it - but I have so far avoided it. I don’t like the idea
weight-loss wise either - and I also have heard too many bad side
effects and long-term effects from Lantus. I do not want to use it!
I think I was talking about why I don’t eat fruit. Sorry it came across
as criticism of your views - I did not intend that. Your system may be
less trigger happy than mine - I can not eat fruit without a major
glucose spike, regardless how much good fiber they contain. Even
Broccoli is a no-no for me.
> Finally, let me say that perhaps you need to be more stringent than I
> do.
Very likely. I believe my pancreas was severely damaged before I was
diagnosed. I unearthed a fasting blood test of 170 back in 1998 - but
nobody said anything and I was only diagnosed in Nov last year. I was
too ignorant on diabetic sugars in people to think 170 was unusual back
in 1998 (200 is diabetic in cats, that I knew) and had I been too sick
then to care what tests were done or why.
Then last year November, I was actually seeing an endo for my main
problem of MEN-1 and she said in passing "What do you use for your
diabetes?" That was the first time anyone in the medical profession
mentioned diabetes to me. (There is none in my family history.) It came
as a shock. So I figured I’d better get in high gear to fix it.
Great - keep it that way:-)
I had kidney damage (now repaired) and neuropathy (now improving but not
all gone yet) and eyesight reduced (not improved yet). It will be mainly
due to the lack of diagnosis in 1998,99,00,01,02,03,04. That’s a long
time on way high sugar.
> Thank you for your response. One of the main things it shows is that
> for diabetes, there is no one-size-fits all method of treatment.
I do agree about that. The approach in diabetes (or any other health
issue) has to be individualized.
What I do believe (because research shows it) however is that sugars
consistently over 110 will do damage over time. How one individually
handles that fact, is a personal choice.
What I also believe (because research shows it) is that non-diabetics
with a healthy pancreas, maintain blood sugars between 80 and 90 all the
time. Their stored insulin keeps it there. What to do about that fact is
also an individual choice - but for me that is my goal - to get to that
healthy normal. It won’t be every diabetic’s goal - but I figure if you
don’t aim there you can’t ever get there:-)
Namaste,
April 4th, 2006 at 6:42 am
Irene, are you talking about between 80 and 90 at all times including after
meals ? Also, do you (or anyone) happen to know if it is normal for young
children to have higher blood sugar after meals than adults do? Out of
curiosity,
I have checked my granddaughters fasting blood sugar and it is always right
at 80. But on other random tests during the day I’ve found it as high as 150
during the past year — she’s just recently turned 5. Never have done a
particular 1 hr, 2 hr type testing, just random when I was checking mine.
Thanks,
Kady
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
April 4th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Hi Irene
Your email was extremely important to me. .How did you cure yourself,was it
really with homeopathy?
Debs
April 6th, 2006 at 1:59 am
Hi Kady, yes that’s the idea.
In the book Dr Bernstein’s Diabetes Solution (an excellent book), the
metabolism involved is explained nicely.Bernstein is a diabetes
specialist who has been diabetic since age 11 and is very healthy still.
> Also, do you (or anyone) happen to know if it is normal for young
> children to have higher blood sugar after meals than adults do?
Quoting from Bernstein’s book p 289, under the section on Selecting a
Target Blood sugar level it says:
"In my experience, random blood sugars of nonobese, nonpregnant,
nondiabetic adults tend to cluster around 85 mg/dl (4.7mmol/l). Children
tend to run slightly lower.
About 1 hour after a *high* carbohydrate meal, many nondiabetics may
have considerably higher values. But this is not "natural" because for
most of human history prior to development of agriculture about 10,000
years ago, high carbohydrate meals were not usually available."
Was that after a high carbohydrate meal? Her fasting level looks normal.
She might just need a diet change.
Namaste,
April 6th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Hi Debs,
I’m not sure which of my emails you are referencing here - but I do
indeed use homeopathy for my health care preference and it has healed
many things so far. Allopathy has no answers for chronic disease; *they*
really don’t understand it’s cause anyway.
However the diabetes is not cured yet, I am still working on it. It
has improved but I am concentrating on the MEN-1 syndrome first as the
diabetes is a side effect - so it will go in turn. The MEN-1 is
improving very well.
Just yesterday I had an irate new doctor who had me fill in a medical
history where I added "(had)" behind several chronic issues on the list
of "Have you ever had…." questions - which have been long since cured
by homeopathy in my case. Teh heart murmur was the one she was least
inclined to believe, though her stethoscope was not helping her
perspective - nor did the echocardiogram she had sent from the
cardiologist who originally diagnosed the left-right shunt in 2001.
She kept telling me those things do not come right they are "permanent".
I just kept saying those were gone now thanks to homeopathy. And she
stubbornly kept saying that is not possible. The fact that I was sitting
there demonstrably without those issues did not impress her - and she
could not wait to get me out of the door.
Homeopathy can be so scary to those who have been taught that their
methods are the only options on the planet. I can’t tell you how many
specialists have shown me the door on some pretext or other, after I
mention the H word when they can not understand where my symptoms went
since last visit.
Homeopathy works well. It may take time. I am on my 3rd year of getting
rid of MEN-1 syndrome - but other things have been faster like plantar’s
fasciitis with heel spurs took a year to totally resorb the bone spurs
and restore flexibility and health to the foot - and breast cancer was
fast - just a month. But that’s because it was a fast one to start with
and homeopathy is in proportion. MEN-1 takes almost a lifetime to
develop - hence longer to fix.
Hope that helps.
NAmaste,