# Paleo - caveman diet



## cmaxwell8 (Mar 20, 2011)

Hi Everyone,

Does anyone know anything about the Paleo (caveman) diet and the effect it has on diabetes control. I tried it for a couple of weeks and felt fantastic with less need for extra insulin but then I ended up in hospital and I'm not sure if this is the cause? 

Any ideas...? x


----------



## margie (Mar 20, 2011)

Hi Cher - I have moved your thread to the general messageboard where its more likely to be seen - and added caveman diet to the title - as I didn't understand the title - but that's probably me being daft.

I don't know much about it - what did the Drs tell you the matter was when you were admitted ? 

Margie


----------



## cmaxwell8 (Mar 20, 2011)

*...*

Hi Margie,

That was the problem, I had DKA but after numerous tests they found no reason for it??!!

Thanks for moving the post. 

Cher


----------



## Copepod (Mar 20, 2011)

Paleolithic diet (or several other names) is based on foods available to hunter gatherer communities, before agriculture. So, it includes meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, nuts, but excludes grains, dairy products, refined sugar, salt, vegetable oils. As levels of all types of diabetes are low in hunter gatherer communities who still follow traditional diets, it might help prevent diabetes developing in the first place (in the proportion of people for whom obesoty leads to type 2 diabetes), but I reckon it would be very tough to live with type 1 diabetes on a paleo diet. As it's typically lower in carbohydrate, it would need less insulin.

If you had DKA, a possible explanation was too little insulin leading to too high levels of blood glucose. It's difficult to adjust insulin doses for such a dramatic change in diet.


----------



## margie (Mar 21, 2011)

I am not a Dr - so please don't take this as gospel.

I am wondering whether in changing your diet, you started to lose a lot of weight, started burning fat and thus produced ketones. Your body needs insulin to process the ketones (this was mentioned on my carb counting course) and you may not have had enough in your system to tackle the amount of ketones in your system.  

Do you have access to a dietician who you could discuss things with who might be able to get to the bottom of things for you ?


----------



## Liz! (Mar 21, 2011)

Sounds as if it is a brilliant diet though! Did you get it from a book? I eat a similar one, called The Zone, but I ignore a lot of its many restrictions, ie I do eat any veg and salad feely and some fruit.

aand if my blood suagr is low, I DO eat sugar. Have to.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Mar 21, 2011)

I come across a few folks who follow the Palaeo diet on other forums, though mostly T2s.

I think Margie is right that (a bit like Atkins) when following very low carb diets the body becomes more efficient at converting fats and proteins into blood glucose, a by-product of the conversion of fats being ketones.

I reckon you'd need a supportive and imaginative team (rather than the lots of carbs with everything default NHS position) to successfully negotiate a fully Palaeo Diet as a T1, but I've come across several moderate/lowish/low carbers who manage very well (A1c's in the 5's)

M


----------



## FM001 (Mar 21, 2011)

Why would anyone want to follow such a diet?  Surely a balanced diet is more preferable including all food groups for optimum nutrition.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Mar 21, 2011)

The thinking goes like this I believe:

For umpty millions of years people ate by hunting and gathering, from an evolutionary perspective any kind of agriculture, let alone the intensive modern sort and what we are now told is a 'balanced' diet (fat=evil, carbs=good) has only just been introduced in the last blink of an eye. Palaeo dieters suggest that our bodies are just not designed to cope with such massive quantities of carbs. Excess carbs promote excess insulin, vulnerable metabolisms fail to cope, high BGs, promote storage as fat, weight gain, insulin resistance, bingo T2 etc etc... If one does not eat excess carbs then even if one has a genetic propensity to a carb-related metabolic disorder like diabetes the downward spiral might be avoided.

It's not something I have really looked into myself, and it may have it's own potential issues (much as any diet restriction, even vegetarianism, often seems to) but the basic idea at least makes some kind of sense to me.


----------



## AlisonM (Mar 21, 2011)

This looks really interesting and it does make sense when you recall that we evolved as hunter gatherers and our bodies would logically function well on that kind of diet, and as we haven't evolved far enough to survive well on carbs, sugar and salt. Then too people like the Japanese live well on a realtively low carb, low salt, low sugar diet, their greatest source of carbs being rice. I've never really understood what the rationale is behind the advice we've all been given at one time or another to eat plenty of carbs. I can't see the advantage unless you're a Sumo wrestler or weight lifter.

I've been following a fairly low carb diet since the beginning and all things being equal it works. I find even with the rollercoaster I've been on, when I fall off the wagon and indulge in something like spuds or more than the odd slice of bread things get much worse. Since I'm no longer a Type 2, I do wonder about the usefulness of the low carb thing, but I'm used to it now and don't want to go back.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Mar 21, 2011)

AlisonM said:


> I've never really understood what the rationale is behind the advice we've all been given at one time or another to eat plenty of carbs. I can't see the advantage unless you're a Sumo wrestler or weight lifter.



If you want a real giggle Alison look up the 'Seven Country Study'. Now widely discredited and accused of cherry-picking results to demonstrate a predefined outcome (21 countries were present in the initial study). The Seven Country Study was the beginning of the 'heart healthy' wholegrain starchy carb nutritional mantra.

It was published after WW2 when lots countries had needed to become more self-sufficient in grain production.

The study was funded by the US grain industry.

Cynical? Me?


----------



## Liz! (Mar 21, 2011)

There was also the heart side of things - it was shown that high fat diets were implicated in heart disease, some diabetics were more prone to heart disease, ergo the whole lot of em (WITHOUT ANY STUDY PERFORMED THEN OR SINCE) were changed onto a low fat, high carb diet, which preciptated a whole lot of other problems, weight gain amongst them. I eat any fat, obviously cholesterol carefully, but I don't avoid it at all, and eat loads of monounsaturates (which help break saturates down). I have never been so healthy, body or blood chemistry wise - and after I started an 'unlow' fat diet, my eczema cleared up.


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Mar 21, 2011)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> If you want a real giggle Alison look up the 'Seven Country Study'. Now widely discredited and accused of cherry-picking results to demonstrate a predefined outcome (21 countries were present in the initial study). The Seven Country Study was the beginning of the 'heart healthy' wholegrain starchy carb nutritional mantra.



You shouldn't believe all the propaganda from the low-carbing anti_Statin Cholesterol Warriors Eduad.
The Seven Countries Study introduced the Mediterranean Diet to public attention and the star of the show was OLive Oil ! Its chief recommendation was to switch out of saturated fats into unsaturated fats to reduce the risk of heart disease. It wasn't about carbohydrates at all. It demonstrated that raised cholesterol, hypertension, smoking etc increased the risk of cvd and as a result the first Risk Assessment programmes for cvd were begun.
You can read a fairly balanced appraisal of the SCS here ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Countries_Study


----------



## HelenM (Mar 21, 2011)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> If you want a real giggle Alison look up the 'Seven Country Study'. Now widely discredited and accused of cherry-picking results to demonstrate a predefined outcome (21 countries were present in the initial study). The Seven Country Study was the beginning of the 'heart healthy' wholegrain starchy carb nutritional mantra.
> 
> It was published after WW2 when lots countries had needed to become more self-sufficient in grain production.
> 
> ...


I've spent all aftenoon trying to reply to this, without writing a dissertation but that proved impossible .... and  I ended up with a level of 2.9! (not enough carbs to fuel my brain) And I've just seen mcdonagh47's reply, why can't I keep things simple?

I think the best summary of Keys as a scientist is included in his obituary in the Guardian


> shortly before his death at 100, when asked if he attributed his longevity to the diet Keys, ever the scientist, replied: "Very likely, but no proof


The internet is a  great big echo chamber. I think it's sad that  Ancel Keys has become a figure  of fun in some places. They all tend to repeat themselves with very few facts. Even down to one influential blogger making  fun of Ancel Keyes appearance,  when he was 100.

   He's actually a fascinating character with a diverse career. Inevitably as a scientist not all of the things he suggested have been replicated and he himself developed and modified his views over the years.
http://www.the-aps.org/membership/obituaries/ancel_keys.htm

  The idea that he somehow cherry picked the countries he used  derrives from a criticism  made  at the time (they similary attacked epidemielogical studies on smoking).  Initially Keys said that in 6 industrialised countries US, Canada, Australia, Japan, Italy and England  those with the highest levels of fat intakes  had  higher rates of heart disease.  Statisticians Yerushalmy  and Hilleboe pointed out that there were more countries with data available and this didn't show such a strong correlation. (actually a graph does show some correlation).  They also poInted out that protein and CVD would show a similar correlation but with different countries. This was quite devastating and  it initially  affected Keys credibility. However,  It is also true that  the statistics  available were were not necessarily accurate and certainly not  comparable between countries.
 On many blogs, they use the 6 countries and plot them against the other data available at the time and suggest that is why Keys chose his countries but  these original 5 countries  are not the countries used in the seven countries study.
 Of course he had   an hypothesis,one informed by what he had learned when he had studied post war Europe and compared it to the US.


When the results from the first pilot studies appeared he was able to answer his critics.  He did not use the 6 industrial countries he had described originally.
  His researchers  studied , not  just different countries but contrasting areas within  those countries; 16 regions.  Study communities were chosen for their contrasting dietary patterns and the relative uniformity of their rural laboring populations.  He  undoubtably   chose countries where he had contacts from his work on post war starvation in Europe and was  consequently able to set up research facilities.  
They did not simply a compare  countries with lowfat/highfat and cvd. They  coudn't, it was a prospective study, one that  followed people over a lifetime. Statistics for deaths were not available until the people died. Large differences in the 25-year death rates from CHD were found among the cohorts.  They looked at  different dietary patterns  including different types of fat, so for example the Cretan diet  which seemed to be protective against CVD was high fat, but monounsaturated in the form of olive oil.   Of course the validity of the results is restricted to the particular population and the specific historical period during which they were studied  but they did provide a platform for further research.
Keys himself went on to conduct metabolic ward studies

http://www.sph.umn.edu/epi/history/mainresults.asp
 This site also describes some of the investigations in each country, why some of the areas were chosen and the challenges of research :quite difficult in a period still only 10 years after the end of WW2. 

 Funding for the Seven countries study was from the US government (even Taubes say's this) Some also was provided locally so for example the Queen of the Netherlands is quoted in one paper as being a funding source.


 This is what Keys actually  wrote  in an early  book for the general public . Eat Well Stay Well:

* Do not get fat, if you do reduce
reduce saturated fats
prefer vegetable oils, keep total fats under 30% of total calories
Favor fresh vegetables, fruits and non fat milk products
Avoid heavy use of salt and refined sugar
Good diets do not depend on drugs and fancy preparations
Get plenty of exercise and outdoor recreation.
Be sensible about cigarettes, alcohol,excitement and business strain
See your doctor regularly and do not worry.*

He did not tell people to eat tons of refined carbs or sugars or franken foods.
He did suggest that a diet such as that eaten in parts of the mediterranean was a healthy one to follow. We know  in hindsight was the use of non fat milk products led to the use of some of the hydrogenated spreads ...but Keys himself condemned transfats (not much listened to on that one at the time)

Be cynical, perhaps sceptical but don't be too quick to accept the  conspiracy theorists. The Seven Countries study   is not the only plank in the lipid hypothesis.
 ]


----------



## margie (Mar 21, 2011)

Thanks Helen for taking the time to put that together, it must have taken a lot of time to dig out all the references and to present the information.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Mar 21, 2011)

Apologies. I have an instant mistrust of conspiracy theories, and seem to have made a bit of a bit of a twit of myself. I am confused though, as I'm sure I read an account of a US grain industry sponsored study (which I'd remembered as seven country or based on it) which said how marvellous wholegrains were for heart health. Diabetics at increased risk of cvd, so feed diabetics lots of carbs. I'll see if I can find the link, so you can shoot that down in flames too


----------



## Liz! (Mar 21, 2011)

I think the problem was not the study they based the change on, but the fact that recommendations changed to a carb based diet instead of just a low cholesterol diet. 

It's taken the world a very long time to realise he was right, and that a reduction in saturated fats and not a complete ban (the diet I was gven origianlly had none in at all!!) a higher monosatuated diet (no information given on this whatsoever) and a lower consumption of dairy, refined sugar etc was the way to go.


----------



## Ellie Jones (Mar 21, 2011)

AlisonM said:


> This looks really interesting and it does make sense when you recall that we evolved as hunter gatherers and our bodies would logically function well on that kind of diet, and as we haven't evolved far enough to survive well on carbs, sugar and salt. Then too people like the Japanese live well on a realtively low carb, low salt, low sugar diet, their greatest source of carbs being rice. I've never really understood what the rationale is behind the advice we've all been given at one time or another to eat plenty of carbs. I can't see the advantage unless you're a Sumo wrestler or weight lifter.



Now this is interesting as Alison points out that we've evovled!

So when we consider that Mr or in fact Mrs caveman who had a very much stouter skeletal frame than us including a slightly different shaped skull, they had one very important bit of kit that modern day man don't have!

They had a second stomach now as Alison has pointed out we the modern man has evolved and no longer process this stomach, just a useless shrivaled appendage called the appendix!

Why did Mr or Mrs caveman have this second stomach, more than likely that it was similar to the cows of stomachs set up, the second one had different acid makeup to extract out the nutrients needed that the first stomach couldn't do to maintain the health!

So with this in mind, how on the earth can somebody believe by eating like Mr or Mrs caveman are we going to achieve optium health!

More to the point was Mr and Mrs caveman as healthy as some people would have us believe?

But with all that said, 

I find diets like these are full of empty promises, partly due to to the fall out rate, as it does take a lot of determination and motivation to keep to them long term..  But you find for T1's that they struggle with control just as much as if they ate a normal diet..

Some even need a higher amount of insulin to counter react the insulin resisdence that the higher fat content of their diet produces..  

And what is one of the biggest downfalls, is that due to concerns of missing vital nutrients followers tend to take one hell of a lot of supplements!  Now if a diet isn't providing the essentrails nutrients it really can't be called healthy!

Me I belive in a well balanced diet, cooked from scratch with fresh ingredients containing a moderat amount of carbs actually works best...  

Thats how I've achieved my control which is very good..


----------



## HelenM (Mar 22, 2011)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Apologies. I have an instant mistrust of conspiracy theories, and seem to have made a bit of a bit of a twit of myself. I am confused though, as I'm sure I read an account of a US grain industry sponsored study (which I'd remembered as seven country or based on it) which said how marvellous wholegrains were for heart health. Diabetics at increased risk of cvd, so feed diabetics lots of carbs. I'll see if I can find the link, so you can shoot that down in flames too



 Apologies, why?
 I'm glad we're not ending up at loggerheads though, you started me off on some interesting trails. I found a whole online archive at the University of Minnesota  that I didn't know was there. I should really have been weeding the garden, I enjoy trying to  find answers 
  Peer review is not perfect but I  find it very hard to believe that a whole generation of  scientists, were bribed, bamboozled or otherwise fooled.    You'll find a lot of studies funded by various industries with an interest, (drug companies, cereal growers, the meat and dairy industries etc etc) it would be great if they were all funded independently but pragmaticallly it's the only way much research will get done. What's important is the independence and integrity of the researchers.  
 I find it  incredible  the ease with which manufacturers have been able to convince us to eat their products  by claiming some of the ingredients are 'healthy' .  A slice of  fluffy  industrial bread,made with reconstituted 'wholegrain' flour,  made  from start to being ready for delivery in a couple of hours; a plateful of chocolate flying saucer objects  made with  some whole grains, lots of sugar and other assorted ingredients. How on earth do they  equate to the  bread, porridge,  or even pasta made from a coarsly milled grain and little else?   

Back to Mr and Mrs Caveman, the point of this thread. An interesting  and different take on the diet of early man  in a very readable book:
 Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human Richard Wrangham
and  he outlines his theories in lecture form here: 
http://vimeo.com/10763241 (almost an hour long though)


----------



## veganlass (Mar 22, 2011)

I too Alison has started following a low carb diet as I could happily eat up to six slices a day of bread.

It would have been interesting to find out if the cavemen had bowel cancer through eating so much meat. Also they ate it raw. Without so much contaminants in meat nowadays and then the hunted animals ate naturally not forced to eat ground up offal etc, in todays factory farms.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Mar 22, 2011)

I was a bit surprised by the idea that Mr and Mrs Caveman might have had two stomachs. My immediate thought was to wonder if existing hunter-gatherer omnivorous species (great apes for example) had the same set up. They don't. I found an interesting snippet from 2009 which suggests appendices have been around for over 80 million years, have evolved at least twice on separate occasions and serve a perfectly proper function that Darwin would never have guessed at, acting as a bolt hole for 'good' gut bacteria when diarrhoea or whatever is causing havoc. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820175901.htm

It still seems to me that the insistence on diabetics (and non-d) eating *lots* of carbs at every meal is a very odd idea. 

We have gone from active to sedentary in just a few generations. And our calorific/carb intake has risen enormously. Can't be a good mix.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Mar 22, 2011)

Have looked (and failed to find) whatever the comment was on the study I'd remembered as '7 country'. Fished about for the origins of the now defunct 'Eatwell Plate' and general NHS obsession with lots of carbs but can't find anything concrete about the origin. 

I also have no idea where the suggested level of 250(!)g of carbs a day comes from that is listed on the food packets, but I know how hard I'd find that to manage in terms of getting insulin doses/activity to work.

The early 90's US Food Pyramid (which looks very like the eatwell plate) was, of course, a concoction of the USDA (Department of *Agriculture*) rather than any Dept of Health, so perhaps we just copied them.


----------



## HelenM (Mar 22, 2011)

That's interesting about  the appendix. Another bit of research to look up
Our ancestors only had one stomach, but the digestive system changed during the course of evolution.
From Wrangham.
Our stomachs are about a third the size that would be expected in a mammal of our size,  smaller than in 97% of primates. We're not well adapted to eat bulky food so our calories need to be relatively dense. The  bit below, the small intestine is only a little smaller than would be expected. This is the main area of digestion and absorption. The colon is again relatively small, we can't cope with as much fibre as other primates. 
  Australopithicines ( Lucy) who existed over 4 million years ago had broad hips and flared ribs suggesting a larger digestive system  like that of the apes . A couple of million years later,  Homo Erectus had evolved .They had smaller brains but were otherwise much like us in physique including out small , weakly muscled jaws and small teeth. Just like us they were  poorly adapted to eat raw unprepared meat,  fibrous fruits and uncooked tubers.   

  The main point of Wrangham's thesis is that we learned,  by accident, to harness fire to cook at an earlier  period than normally suggested.The added advantage of this is  that with fire, we would also not have to nest in trees at night for protection. Our ancestors would then have  had the ability to produce easily assimable food, both from animal  sources but also high energy carbs.   These foods  would then provided more  energy to fuel  increased brain development but in turn,  the large, digestive system of the ape and the  powerful jaws would have become redundant. 

If  true, this would have influenced the diet of people in paleolithic times immensly, roast tubers  would be easily produced. Flat breads made from pounded ferns, wild grains and other plants could  have been on the menu from relatively early times, so far we have some evidence of  grinding from about 30,000 years ago .


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Mar 22, 2011)

HelenM said:


> If true, this would have influenced the diet of people in paleolithic times immensly, roast tubers  would be easily produced. Flat breads made from pounded ferns, wild grains and other plants could  have been on the menu from relatively early times, so far we have some evidence of  grinding from about 30,000 years ago .



That's a very interesting thought. I've never completely bought in to the Palaeo idea, but it did seem to have an interesting thread of thought behind it based on the fairly recent catastrophic breakdown of human metbolism in developed countries.

I guess the pragmatist in me sees it as a bit like the Global Warming issue. If you have a complex system and you massively change the inputs over a (fairly short) period of time things will potter along fairly happily for a while managing to cope with the change, but sooner or later the balance will have shifted too far and bingo (in this context) obesity epidemic.

People may have had the genetic propensity to develop T2 diabetes for generations, but if their diet/level of activity etc as a 12th Century serf were sufficient to keep them away from the 'danger zone' of metabolic breakdown/weight gain it would never have been triggered.

Whenever Drs have asked me if there is any T1 diabetes in my family I have to say, no. And if there was, it would have been long enough ago that they would have just died pretty quickly.


----------



## Liz! (Mar 22, 2011)

What I found my whiole life, until I started a lower carb diet, was that I had to eat the carb first, to make sure I got it down me, and once I'd done that I had no room for the veg or salad! Now I have mainly veg and salad, a small amount of carbs and some protein (not Atkins or Zone style, just a normal portion of lowish fat meat, goats cheese, egg etc) for every main meal. I eat hardly any potato, no rice, pasta etc. I immediately felt so much better. My health, skin, eyes, wellbeing, improved hugely.


----------



## Robster65 (Mar 22, 2011)

This is a fascinating thread.

Has anyone mentioned (I may have missed it) about the economic need to eat carbs instead of protein after the war ?

Lots of hard hit economies and lots of starving people needing sustenance who can't afford meat or fish.

Let them eat cake. Or potatoes. Or bread. Or turnips. A bit like the peasantry of Europe who had no access to meat or fish and had to grow their own meagre food in a small field system.

Could it be a hangover from those times that the working classes should eat lots of carbs because they always have done and because it solves the problem of having to make protein more affordable ?

I was given a diet sheet of approx 230g carbs when I was diagnosed. I am currently averaging about 250g which surprises even me but it's what I eat. I'm hoping to speak to the dietician v soon so I'll try to remember to ask her opinion.

Just to add that we haven't evolved from the hunter-gatherers who wandered the plains of the earth after the ice-age (<10,000 years). It is their diet we should be mimicking, rather than looking back millions of years. 

Rob


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Mar 22, 2011)

Robster65 said:


> This is a fascinating thread.
> 
> Has anyone mentioned (I may have missed it) about the economic need to eat carbs instead of protein after the war ?
> 
> ...



I mentioned something it seems I misremembered which linked the high-carb recommendations to an ailing US grain industry post WW2. I've failed to find where I thought I'd read that though  The stuff Helen posted about the much maligned 'Seven Country Study' seems entirely sensible. I had thought it was connected but perhaps it was just someone re-examining the data-set with a _Grain Industry agenda_ later and publishing that?


----------



## HelenM (Mar 22, 2011)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Have looked (and failed to find) whatever the comment was on the study I'd remembered as '7 country'. Fished about for the origins of the now defunct 'Eatwell Plate' and general NHS obsession with lots of carbs but can't find anything concrete about the origin.
> 
> I also have no idea where the suggested level of 250(!)g of carbs a day comes from that is listed on the food packets, but I know how hard I'd find that to manage in terms of getting insulin doses/activity to work.
> 
> The early 90's US Food Pyramid (which looks very like the eatwell plate) was, of course, a concoction of the USDA (Department of *Agriculture*) rather than any Dept of Health, so perhaps we just copied them.



Carbohydrates in human nutrition. (FAO Food and Nutrition Paper - 66)
http://www.fao.org/docrep/w8079e/w8079e00.htm
You'd have to chase up the references. The chart of carb intake in different countries is interesting, some countries had 70/80% of their diet as carbs, but of course this means they also had very low protein/fat intakes.    


 I think this  describes the origins  of the UK advice  but again you'd  have to look up loads of references:
Scientific basis of nutrition  education: A synopsis of dietary reference values It's 2003 but it's an update , the earliest version was 1992
http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/whoweare/aboutthehda/hdapublications/hda_publications.jsp?o=369

Interestingly in the latter, they wanted to cut sat fat by 6%, cut added sugars by 3% whilst leaving protein the same. To do this they said that the largest portion of food on a plate should be  fibre-rich starchy foods *and *fruits and vegetables. Foods rich in saturates should make up a smaller proportion than at present.


In France where I live the messages have become very much more specific recently (and they're banged home with lots of advertising linked and paid for by the manufacturers of high fat/sugar products)
 3 meals a day,
 2 protein portions of 100g meat/ fish,  one or two eggs,   
The five fruit and veg are *a minimum of* :
 a fruit the size of a tennis ball for breakfast.
 Half a plate of vegetables or fruits at lunch.  
A plate of salad or  a plate of cooked veg with dinner 
1 glass of natural fruit juice
a quarter of a plate of fruit for a snack.
 Then you have to add dairy, 2-3 times a day, low fat yoghurts or milk or 30g of cheese.
The starch element is  according to appetite ( unless overweight or on a special diet).    Wholegrains and pulses are 'preferred'

(oh and then you have to move for at least half an hour a day... the catch word is manger, bouger.. to eat, to move)
They even have suggested weekly menus  on their website!


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Mar 22, 2011)

HelenM said:


> In France where I live the messages have become very much more specific recently (and they're banged home with lots of advertising linked and paid for by the manufacturers of high fat/sugar products)
> 3 meals a day,
> 2 protein portions of 100g meat/ fish,  one or two eggs,
> The five fruit and veg are *a minimum of* :
> ...



Thanks for those links... will take  a look in a quiet moment.

All that fruit and fruit juice would be incredibly challenging for many T2s I'd have thought (especially in the mornings). I wonder if the advice is tweaked for diabetics, it rarely seems to be here (unless the dietician/DSN in question has gone on a limb and suggests Crazy Things like post-meal tests for T2s )


----------



## Bluecat (Nov 7, 2015)

cmaxwell8 said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Does anyone know anything about the Paleo (caveman) diet and the effect it has on diabetes control. I tried it for a couple of weeks and felt fantastic with less need for extra insulin but then I ended up in hospital and I'm not sure if this is the cause?
> 
> Any ideas...? x





cmaxwell8 said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Does anyone know anything about the Paleo (caveman) diet and the effect it has on diabetes control. I tried it for a couple of weeks and felt fantastic with less need for extra insulin but then I ended up in hospital and I'm not sure if this is the cause?
> 
> Any ideas...? x



I've been jenning up on the Paleo way of eating and am now transitioning.  I have known for years that carbs are what cause me problems.  I'm T2 and a couple of years ago, I took on the 5:2 which was a great success for me but last year I blipped and have regained 10kg of the 23 that I lost. What I'm planning on doing is to use natural foods but in the 5:2 format. I'm transitioning at the moment as I'm going away for 7-10 days and will not be the one cooking although I will do my best to stay away from all refined carbs and sugars etc as best I can.  I'm also dumping dairy - I've learned to like almond milk!  My GP knows what I'm planning and he's good at monitoring me (I live in France).  In just this first week, my sugars have dropped.  When I did the 5:2, I gave up alcohol and continue to be alcohol-free.  All my carbs will come from fruit (limited) and veg which I love.  I'm replacing pasta and rice with Konjac and grains with nuts (in moderation), seeds and quinoa.


----------



## Northerner (Nov 7, 2015)

Bluecat said:


> I've been jenning up on the Paleo way of eating and am now transitioning.  I have known for years that carbs are what cause me problems.  I'm T2 and a couple of years ago, I took on the 5:2 which was a great success for me but last year I blipped and have regained 10kg of the 23 that I lost. What I'm planning on doing is to use natural foods but in the 5:2 format. I'm transitioning at the moment as I'm going away for 7-10 days and will not be the one cooking although I will do my best to stay away from all refined carbs and sugars etc as best I can.  I'm also dumping dairy - I've learned to like almond milk!  My GP knows what I'm planning and he's good at monitoring me (I live in France).  In just this first week, my sugars have dropped.  When I did the 5:2, I gave up alcohol and continue to be alcohol-free.  All my carbs will come from fruit (limited) and veg which I love.  I'm replacing pasta and rice with Konjac and grains with nuts (in moderation), seeds and quinoa.


Good luck Bluecat!


----------



## Andy HB (Nov 8, 2015)

When I first saw this thread my immediate thought was "Oh no, not another faddy diet and where will they find the odd mammoth to slaughter?" 

But, I think the point is, if it works (excluding the odd mammoth, of course), is healthy and gives someone all the nutrition they need, then why not?

So! Good luck from me too and let us know how you get on. 

I think the problem with weight loss and then weight gain is that I think our bodies are primed to gain weight easily again. We have to be vigilant when we get to our desired weight and not let it creep back up again too much (I failed on that score and now need to lose another stone ..... which has been the case for around a year now! I really must get back to dealing with it .... atleast I have halted the deterioration though).


----------

