For those not in the know, Type 2 is the diet-controlled form of diabetes that normally sets in over the age of 40, rather than Type 1, which is insulin-controlled and whose symptoms appear much earlier on. Both types of diabetes are hereditary, and my aunt isn't the first member of my ma's side of the family to have it.
As I've said before, I hate the word "diet". Well, I hate fad diets - the kind that are designed to be temporary just to make you look good. A successful diet is a permanent change for a healthier body, and that's how it should be. I tried Atkins once, and it was a monumental failure - cutting carbohydrates out of my diet for two weeks was not only impossible, but it felt wrong in every sense. The ideal diet, in my opinion, requires gradual, long-term change over immediate removal of 'bad' foods. So, ignorant as I was about Type 2 diabetes, I was surprised and very pleased with myself to find that the kind of diet my aunt's now on isn't very different from my own. (When I'm at uni, that is.)
Now, everyone knows about the five food groups and how you need to have them in every meal, right? Well, one thing I didn't know about Type 2 diabetes is that, in order to maintain good blood glucose levels and blood fats, you need to base every meal on the carbohydrate group - moreover, starchy foods like bread, pasta, potatoes, rice and so on.
This is where the GI - glycaemic index - comes in. Diabetes UK defines the GI as "a measure of how quickly foods that contain carbohydrate raise blood glucose levels". Different foods have different GIs because not all carbohydrates have the same effect on blood glucose levels. Low GI meals release carbohydrates more slowly into the bloodstream, which prevents 'hypos' in Type 1 diabetics, makes you feel fuller for longer (which helps with weight loss) and improves 'good' cholesterol levels.
Pretty cool, eh? Before now, I've been wandering around Tesco thinking that this new-fangled GI thing they were promoting was either something to do with the army, or standing for "good, innit?" (Me and my pseudo-Cockney humour.
There is no need for anyone with diabetes to eat special diabetic foods like biscuits, chocolate, jams or sweets. Instead you can eat ordinary chocolate, biscuits and jams as part of an overall balanced diet.
Foods labelled "diabetic" often costs a lot more, and tends to be just as high in fat and calories as ordinary products. They usually contain a bulk sweetener, such as fructose or sorbitol, which can have a laxative effect and make blood glucose levels rise. Diabetic foods are unnecessary and offer no special benefit to people with diabetes.
(source : Diabetes UK: 'Diabetic' foods)
Foods labelled "diabetic" often costs a lot more, and tends to be just as high in fat and calories as ordinary products. They usually contain a bulk sweetener, such as fructose or sorbitol, which can have a laxative effect and make blood glucose levels rise. Diabetic foods are unnecessary and offer no special benefit to people with diabetes.
(source : Diabetes UK: 'Diabetic' foods)
Diabetes UK also recommends the obvious things like eating your five portions of fruit and veg a day, cutting down on saturated fats, sugar and salt (they say use herbs and spices instead of salt, which I completely support) and cut back on the ol' alcomahol.
Cutting back on booze goes against everything I stand for at the moment, but aside from that one vice I eat pretty damn healthily. Confectionery rarely enters the equation when I'm at uni - no chocolate, no cookies, no fizzy drinks. Hell, the only sugar I get is from drinking red WKDs like they're going out of fashion. Most of my meals are pasta or rice-based (go go gadget curry!), and the menu often contains chicken, fish and steamed veggies in various combinations. My snacks of choice, on the rare occasions I treat myself, are pine nuts, sunflower seeds and pistachios.
Not bad for a student, eh?
Well, truth be told, I'm still a little overweight, and being back at home amongst all the temptations of ice cream and so on doesn't help. But the good news is that I'm still on the Special K diet, and it's working pretty good. Sure, I have odd days where I lapse and don't have the two bowls I'm meant to, but I've lost a few pounds, I can fit into a pair of jeans that I couldn't before, and I look a little better than I did at the beginning of summer. Kellogg's proclaim that you can "lose an inch off your waist in two weeks", but I'm sticking with it, mostly because until I can start properly cooking for myself again, it's the healthiest option I've got. Besides, I'm not half as obsessed with my appearance as most advertising tries to convince me that I am.
But I did read something the other day that made me giggle, only because it's very true. If you really want to lose weight, buy smaller plates. It'll give you the illusion that you're eating the same amount, and therefore make you feel full when you're done. Simple, yet a stroke of genius.
As luck would have it, Ma's now calling for me to cook up a Joey Supreme. It's a masterpiece of chicken, pasta and pesto, and with the right ingredients it's rather good for you. And it's my own invention. Mwahahaha!
2 comments:
Five food groups? When I was in school, there were four. More food? I think they're teaching the food pyramid these days. And skinny people wonder why we're so confused. Dr. Phil is a nutjob to some but I thought his weight-loss book was pretty neat. Didn't finish it either but maybe if I did, I wouldn't be so fat.
Yep, five food groups (I think these make up the food pyramid too):
bread, cereal, potatoes, pasta etc.
fruit and veg
dairy produce (cheese, milk, eggs etc.)
fish, meat and alternatives
fat and sugar
The worst part of all this food planning stuff is that my little sister eats nothing but junk, does no exercise, and still looks like a twig. It sucks.
And hey, I think Dr. Phil rocks.
Post a Comment