“Low Carb vs. High Carb – My Surprising 24-Day Diabetes Diet Battle”

lowercarbs

What’s the difference between high-carb and lower-carb diets for someone with type 1 diabetes? Adam Brown decided to test it, with interesting results.

He started out with his usual diet: 12 days of lower-carb, mostly from vegetables, nuts, seeds and some fruit. Then he switched to a high-carb diet for 12 days, where the carbs came from whole wheat bread, oatmeal, quinoa, wild rice and fruit. No junk food whatsoever.

The result of his experiment surprised him:

I would summarize it like this: high-carb eating felt like highway driving from Los Angeles to San Francisco, alternating between 120 mph and 10 mph. Low-carb eating felt more like driving between 55 and 75 mph. The final averages were the same (65 mph), but the experience was far different in terms of safety and effort.

diaTribe: Low Carb vs. High Carb – My Surprising 24-day Diabetes Diet Battle

More

LCHF for Beginners – the Low Carb, High Fat Diet

A Revolutionary Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes – Hanna Boëtius

Sugar May Increase the Risk of Type ONE Diabetes Too

“Overall, I Now Have a Completely New Life”

3 comments

  1. 1 comment removed
  2. BobM
    That's a very interesting article. I'd advise her to eat more real meat and even fewer carbs, but at least she's eating somewhat low carb (21% of daily calories).
  3. Eric
    Tweenty plus percent carbs is not low carb. But what criteria can we use? I think Dr. Richard K bernstein THIRTY grams or less per day is one way, or what happens to ones blood sugar and ones insulin at a given dose.

    No such thing as carbohydrate deficient human when meat, eggs, butter and
    Gluconeogenisis
    Provide

  4. Leroy
    I have to agree with Eric.... this supposed Low Carb diet is no where near being a true LC diet, and not remotely close to being LCHF.

    And a 24-day trial???

    That is barely three weeks.

    There seems to be a plethora of articles (*) where there's just a tiny segment that LEANS towards the benefits of LCHF while the primary thrust of the article isn't anything at all like LC much less LCHF.

    For "old-timer" LC Diet folks, they can see through the articles like that and make those distinctions... but "newbies" (like my daughter who introduced me to this site) they can easily reach the wrong conclusion. They can reach the conclusion that these types of diets ARE indeed beneficial LCHF or simply LC diets, when they are NOT!

    I would rather see true LCHF articles reran rather than see these.

    When dealing with epidemics of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular problems, eating a little bit better or "somewhat low carb" should not be the goal... going fully LCHF is the objective (and that phrase reminds me of the phrase "being slightly pregnant" - you either are, or you aren't; and she is not low carb, unless she is eating very low calorie so that 21% carbs equals 30-70 grams, in which case she isn't getting enough protein nor anywhere near enough Fats!).

    (*) One example being the recent article on the so-called "Mid Victorian Era Diet". That diet is not only NOT a healthy LC or LCHF diet, but is totally made up and not at all how they really ate (or exercised!) at the lower class levels (which is what the article alleges).

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts