10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 +4 166 PMPS 139 +1 117 +2 142

[Lisa & Leo]

Yesterday's Travel Rama Condo
Yesterday's summary

AMPS 225
+1 135
+2 88
+2.5 78
+3 92
+5 150
+10.5 477
PMPS 399
+1.5 403
+6 389

Yesterday was Travel Back to Mamabean's Apartment in the Dreaded Magic Transporter Box. Of course he started to dive in the morning, making me steer him out of the danger zone, thereby putting more food in his belly, thereby screwing up the absorption of the Cerenia. Which defeats the purpose of the Cerenia in the first place. LUCKILY no uuuuurrrrfffff mid trip.

Since he nearly always poos 20-30 min into the trip, Smart Mama Bean pulled over about 20 min in and let him out of the cage. Put him in the box, drove slowly around a park. No dice. But 10 minutes later, the wafting smell of poopie-doops fills the air. And sigh, not just little hard turds. Poor Leo! (Note to self: add to "Traveling with Diabetic Kitties" guidelines - spare shirt for bean). BUT I think I've worked out the perfect pee pad pattern for easy poopie removals. Nervous travel poopies may just be a fact of life. Will post pics next time (pre-poopie of course).

Leo weathered the trip better, zoned most of the time. We had a spot of light rain, and the windshield wipers fascinated him. He kept looking left and right and left and right ... it was funny! And also the only time that he didn't look glassy-eyed. He's forgiven me, and actually slept with me for a while. Perhaps (antijinx) this is getting easier.

Thanks to all of you for stopping by after we crashed last night.

@Ann - we are using Terumo but with the 1 unit markings. My pharmacy is clueless about the 1/2 unit. I will try Hocks, or in MD I don't need a prescription. I count drops too (because no 1/2 unit marks), but of course, counting from the 2 unit line. Are you using calipers? I couldn't find mine this weekend so asking DH to get some for next weekend. Mags - thanks darling, slept like a log. Even deigned to lean against the bean in the night. ~Leo

@Rhiannon - seriously, right?! Looking at his SS, he's dipping during the day but the PM cycles are strangely higher. So who knows how much is stress. Not sure what's happening in the PM. I'm worried about Mr. L - he's screwing this all up. GET THE MEMO MR L.

@Alexa - we both slept like logs. I wish I'd known he'd float high pinks all night - I wouldn't have gotten up for the +6.

Reading your posts is a great experience, Lisa - it's impressive to watch a bean learn how to deal with whatever their cat throws at them! You're doing a wonderful job!

@Jane - Yes, he's thrown pukus, poopies of various consistencies and massive pees. What else is there?!? :lol: Thanks for the vines!

Happy Day all our 2-and 4-legged friends!

 

[Lisa & Leo]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 and LC+HC=MC carb % math

Mixing Different Carb Calorie % Foods

A question recently came up regarding mixing different % carb foods. I think there is a little confusion so I'd like to offer my thoughts. First, we throw around "% carbs" but what we really mean is the percentage of calories from carbs. Mixing foods with different % carbs won't turn one food with one percentage into a different percentage. However, it will change the overall percentage of the food mixture. Mixing "LC "with "HC" will yield a carb % somewhere near the average of the two (although not necessarily "MC" as defined on the boards).

Here is an example using data from page 5 of Dr. Lisa's list. Mix two 3 oz cans of Fancy Feast that have % carb values of 1% and 18%. The resulting 6 oz mix (or any part of it) has 8.8% calories from carbs.

The math:
Dr. Lisa's chart: Food ... % calories due to Protein/fat/carbs ... kcals/3oz can
Fancy Feast Savory Salmon Feast ... 38/61/1 ...97
Fancy Feast Marinated Morsels Beef Feast in Gravy ... 57/25/18 ...82

First, we have to calculate the actual number of calories due to carbs in each 3oz can:
FF SSF: 97 calories * 1% = .97 carb calories
FF MMBFG: 82 calories * 18% = 14.76 carb calories

Let's mix these two cans of food together. We get a total of 97+82 = 179 total calories for 6 oz of food.
Of these, 0.97 + 14.76 = 15.73 total calories are due to carbs.
Calculating the percentage, 15.73 total carb calories out of 179 calories = 15.73/179 = 8.8%

Using an average as a short cut like many of us are doing (e.g., 1% and 17% = 9%) is an ok approximation if the two cans have about the same number of total calories. If the total calories are very different, then doing the math may be in order just to check.

Hope that helps. Feel free to correct my assumptions. Please let me know if this is not clear.

 

[snorton]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420

Lisa - Perhaps, he will calm down some today knowing he will stay put for a few days. Glad trip was a bit better for you.

 

[Ann & Maggie11 (GA)]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420

Morning Lisa, and glad you both made the trip okay. Sounds like Leo gets settled in once there and hope he comes down for you today. No, I don't use the calipers, but I know quite a few here do. I use the Monojects, ordered from American Diabetes Wholsale. There are variances in some of the lines, but I make do with the drops counting
Leo, my bro, hang in there. Jut enjoy yourself in your new temp home, Mags

 

[Sienne and Gabby (GA)]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 HC+LC Carb % math

I don't disagree with your math. I do think there may be a difference when one of the foods is a zero percent carb food, though. In the original post, there was a mix of 7% and 0%.

 

[Lisa & Leo]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 HC+LC Carb % math

I don't disagree with your math. I do think there may be a difference when one of the foods is a zero percent carb food, though. In the original post, there was a mix of 7% and 0%.

For 0%, it would be the same analysis. Take FF Flaked Fish & Shrimp Feast at 79/21/0 and 89 calories total instead of the Savory Salmon.Total calories due to carbs in this case is zero.
Still using Fancy Feast Marinated Morsels Beef Feast in Gravy ... 57/25/18 ...82

Total calories is 82 + 89 = 171
Total carb calories 0.0 + 14.76 = 14.76 total calories are due to carbs.
Calculating the percentage, 14.76 total carb calories out of 171 calories = 8.6%

Think of it as "watering down" the calories due to carbs in a larger bowl of food.

There's another angle. You have 10 balls. 8 of them are red and 2 are pink. Overall, 20% of your balls are pink.
I also have 10 balls. All of my balls are red. Overall, 0% of my balls are pink.
If we put all of our balls together, we have 20 balls. 2 of them are pink. Now, overall, 2 out of 20, or 10% of the balls are pink.
Adding 20% pink balls to 0% pink balls makes a bowl of 10% pink balls.

I hope that makes it clearer. It seems like a shell game, doesn't it?

 

[Jane & Jack & Karre the Emperor]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 HC+LC Carb % math

I LOVE this discussion! :smile:

Lisa, one query:

The math fits, in your logic, but it reads as though you're saying to focus more on the calories at the basis of the carbs percentage listings, than on the carbs percentages themselves?

But: Cats respond with higher/faster BG-rises with HC than they do with LC, and the duration of those rises is different also, depending on carbs percentage. So when trying to get a cat's BG to rise quickly out of low numbers, it is valid to focus on the percentage of carbohydrates in the food. I wouldn't want that point to get missed. Am I just being maths-dense? :lol:

Jane

 

[Lisa & Leo]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 HC+LC Carb % math

Jane - you raise a great question, and I'm off to work (Leo's numbers actually look decent!) but will think on it for a clear answer.

I did the math according to % calories due to carbs, because those are the numbers that are provided in Dr. Lisa's chart. If I am not mistaken (and clearly I've been clueless many times) when we talk about %carbs, we're talking about CALORIES from carbs, not a weight measure like grams, right?

Debate with enthusiasm, fold-spindly-mutilate as you see fit, and I'll check back in when I get a chance - good day all!

 

[rhiannon and shadow (GA)]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 HC+LC Carb % math

Without putting it in your math terms, anI've become mathmatically challenged in my young years due to life, my DH tells me you can't
mix the two and get a different %.
I will try to get him to come read your thread tonite and see if he will participate and explain what he is saying.
I don't know if he will or not, but it's hard for me to explain his two cents so IF i can get him to do it, I will.
He does love debate.
I just accepted his premise and I find a food with whatever carb % I want and feed that. I generally only have to add shrimp juice or
shrimp or fortiflora to get mine to eat whatever I put in front of her. Sometimes I have to follow her around and hold it for her.
I haven't tried mixing any. I do need to give up on duck. Too novel for her and she walks away from that one.

 

[Lisa & Leo]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 HC+LC Carb % math

Popping on quickly at lunch...

The math fits, in your logic, but it reads as though you're saying to focus more on the calories at the basis of the carbs percentage listings, than on the carbs percentages themselves?

I started with calories just because that's what you'd have to do to perform the math correctly for averaging. Averaging the percentages directly would only work if the cans had the same total calories. But it's a close estimate to just average the % numbers.

Question for you though - when we talk about "carb percentages" on the boards here, we're talking "percentage of calories from carbs" right? That's what Binky's and Dr. Lisa's charts present. Maybe we have an issue with definitions. This isn't like a nutritional chart you'd see on the side of a box of cereal - those "carbohydrates" are given in milligrams (mg) not percentages (at least here in the US). Not the same thing, unfortunately.

But: Cats respond with higher/faster BG-rises with HC than they do with LC, and the duration of those rises is different also, depending on carbs percentage. So when trying to get a cat's BG to rise quickly out of low numbers, it is valid to focus on the percentage of carbohydrates in the food. I wouldn't want that point to get missed. Am I just being maths-dense? :lol: Jane

No, you're not math-dense - I did barf out an unfair number of calculations so early in the morning I completely agree - your point is actually at the forefront of this discussion, since people have discussed steering their cats based on LC/MC/HC, and creating "MC-ish food" by combining different amounts of HC and LC. We should make sure we're all making the same assumptions. I'm happy to have someone explain if my logic is bad - it's all about making sure my little guy is well taken care of.

@Rhiannon - I'd be happy to hear your DH's feedback if he wants to visit. I am no nutritionist, just a math nut. I may have been vague on one point ... if you only intended to feed 1 can of food, you'd mix only 1/2 can of the HC and 1/2 can of the LC to get 1 serving of the new carb %. You'd still serve the same volume/weight of food, not twice as much food. Sorry I'm not doing great at explaining where my brain is going. But shrimp juice works wonders - tuna juice in my house too!

 

[Carl & Polly & Bob (GA)]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 HC+LC Carb % math

Hi all,
I've been mired in a "funk" lately, so haven't been around much, sorry. I'll get over it eventually. When I saw this discussion, I felt a need to post, because it's about two of my favorite subjects - food and math. ;-)

I agree with your basic premise from a theoretical point of view. If you mix a can a 2% carbs and 10% carbs, you're likely to come up with a yummy custom variety that should come in at 6% carbs or so.... in perfect world. But the world of canned cat food is nowhere close to perfect.

Dr. Lisa posted a 2nd thread after she posted her new charts, saying among other things this:

"5%" carbs is no different from "10%" carbs and I often see people getting way too fixated on the values. There is TREMENDOUS variability from batch-to-batch....so much that I almost stopped gathering data and contemplated going to just two sentences that state:

"Gravy foods are typically higher in carbs. If the food is free of grains, potatoes, peas, etc. (any starchy food) it is low in carbs."

Ok...so foods WITH those starchy ingredients, sure, we need to know the composition but please try not to get too fixated on the numbers. A batch really could be 5% one day and a 10% (or more) the next.

More on that later, but wanted to mention a couple of other things I've read in this thread first -

when we talk about %carbs, we're talking about CALORIES from carbs, not a weight measure like grams, right?

100% correct, we are talking about how many of the calories in that can of food are attributed to carbohydrates in the ingredients (vs. protein, fat)

Without putting it in your math terms, anI've become mathmatically challenged in my young years due to life, my DH tells me you can't
mix the two and get a different %.
I will try to get him to come read your thread tonite and see if he will participate and explain what he is saying.

I'm not sure what he means by "a different %"? If he's saying that if you mix 2% with 10% and won't get a number other than 2% or 10%, then I don't understand why not. If he's saying you can't get any percentage other than the average of the two, I think that's correct in theory, but not in practice. Either way, please encourage him to post and explain further!

But: Cats respond with higher/faster BG-rises with HC than they do with LC, and the duration of those rises is different also, depending on carbs percentage. So when trying to get a cat's BG to rise quickly out of low numbers, it is valid to focus on the percentage of carbohydrates in the food. I wouldn't want that point to get missed. Am I just being maths-dense?

I don't think you're being math-dense at all, JJ :smile: I do think however that there's a basic reason why the HC acts faster and lasts not-as-long, and that would be that in general, we're dealing with "gravy" with HC food. Being liquid, it gets from kitty's mouth to her bloodstream much more quickly since it doesn't have to go through that pesky digestion process for as long. By contrast, dry food, high in carbs, takes a lot longer to raise BG, and it sticks around longer. The gravy hits quick and passes quickly. Kind of like the difference between gulping down a cup of coffee will wake you up faster than taking a caffeine pill will, but it won't last as long.

OK, back to carbs, percents and cat food...
In a perfect world, all cat food would be 0% carbs due to the fact that cats have no nutritional requirements for any carbohydrates at all.

Cats, like all animals, require six classes of nutrients: water, energy, protein, essential fatty acids, minerals, and vitamins. Cats do not have a dietary requirement for carbohydrates. The metabolic requirement for glucose in the cat is derived from protein (glucogenic amino acids) and fat (glycerol). Cats are adapted to a protein- fat-rich, carbohydrate-poor diet.

Cats have no dietary requirement for carbohydrates for neither energy or glucose. Typical of carnivores, cats can receive all their energy and nutritional needs from protein and fat.

All animals have a metabolic requirement for glucose. Carnivores, such as the cat, convert glucogenic amino acids and glycerol to glucose for the maintenance of blood glucose, and therefore, have no established dietary requirement for carbohydrates.

In general, an absence of dietary carbohydrate in the feline diet will not affect blood glucose levels or cause an energy deficiency; this is because the body can use protein and the glycerol portion of fat for glucose production, and fat and protein for energy.

http://maxshouse.com/feline_nutrition.htm (Awesome website if you've never seen it)

He says it enough times and in enough different ways, so I guess it's pretty important. Any carbs in their diet are pointless and useless to kitty's system. Apparently, a "normal" cat can deal with the carbs and still maintain a normal BG range, although I would guess that eventually, it makes them at least prone to become sugarkitties like "ours" are?

Back to what Dr. Lisa said...
Go buy three cans of Fancy Feast Classic Chopped Grill. Her chart says that according to Purina's data, you've got three cans of yummy 4% calories from carbs goodness. Now, are all 3 cans exactly at 4%? Not likely. One could be 2%, one could be 7%. Who knows? We call it 4% so we can put a number on it, but there's no way any two cans are created equal.
A couple of weeks ago, I discussed this with a wonderful bean who posts here occasionally. She supplied the perfect (to me) analogy and I'm going to share it with you.
I make a big huge pot of chili, mixing all the great ingredients like meat, seasonings, sauce and three different types of beans. I can't eat 10 quarts of chili in one sitting, so I break out the tupperware freezer containers, and I freeze 8 quarts for later. I look at all the nutritional information on all the cans and boxes and packages of all the stuff I put in there, and I figure out that I'm packing say 500 calories per serving into my freezer containers (so I can track my daily caloric intake and stick to my diet!). OK, 500 calories per serving! Next week, I thaw out a couple of those containers, and have one for lunch one day, and for dinner the next day. Now, which of those containers actually contains exactly 500 calories? Neither. It's just a ballpark number. One has more beans and less meat than the other. But I'm writing "500" on my calorie tracker both days, because I have to write something down, right?

Back to Purina - I have no idea how cat food is actually made. I'm envisioning these big huge vats the size of a hot tub where they dump all the ingredients in, grind them up, cook them for a while (I can't imagine what it must smell like in this place), then they somehow dump this mixture into cans, seal them up, and ship them off. I think Dr. Lisa's point is that there isn't an exact science to this, and some batches get more or less of each ingredient that fits within Purina's degree of variance, and one batch (or even part of a batch) contains a different mix of ingredients than another. So what goes in the can is the Chopped Grill formula, more or less. Some of it will be 4%, but some of it won't be 4%. What percent is actually is, nobody knows, but 4% is close enough for government work.

Tying this all back to Lisa's original concept. Yes, your math seems sound and logical. But only as far as "theory" goes. Because the types of food, and the carb percentages are not exact, and inconsistent. On paper it works, but I don't think it works in practice.

And when it comes down to it, Dr. Lisa's best advice (IMHO) is this:

Therefore, no matter how much we want it to be different.....scientific conclusions cannot be tightly drawn (ie "5% carbs is better for my cat than 8%) when the data is so erratic/inconsistent and **unknown** at any given time.

ECID....with C = "can"

Why am I beating this to death? Because I don't like to see people get so fixated on the carb numbers to the point where they drive themselves nuts.

Carl

 

[Lisa & Leo]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 HC+LC Carb % math

Hi Ann - thanks for checking in and the reference. I really have to find the time to order something else and check them out. I know - one thing at a time! Leo says thanks, he's probably still sleeping it off.

Hi Shannan - hopefully - look at him go. He might even have hit a green while I am at work! Yeah, we both settled down a little more easily after this trip. He better get used to it faster and faster .... we go back home again on Thursday! This may be a Monday-Thursday gig for us both for the foreseeable future. :?

 

[rhiannon and shadow (GA)]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 HC+LC Carb % math

I'm tryng to get my Dh to come. He'd rather debate about football or bicycles or politics, he said. :roll:

But as he keeps followiing me reiterating what he thinks.

He thinks you are confusing percentages with grams.

This is all he is going to say. He doesn't want in the discussion. So he sat and typed this.

If you put a scoop of ice cream into a glass of water you have made a yummy water float and you have changed the percentage of carbs but you have not changed the amount of carbs you have consumed. Water has zero and let's say we use a 1000 g of water. A scoop of ice cream (Blue Bell, is there any better?) has 22 grams in a 77 gram serving. If I eat it by itself that's 28.6% carbs. I add it to the water and that's 2.0% carbs but I still cumsumed the 22 grams.


The physiological response is going to be to the 22 grams, not the 2 % .

 

[Lisa & Leo]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 HC+LC Carb % math

Hi Carl - we missed you! I'm glad you stopped over to comment, and wow what an informative post you left. I appreciate the time you took to put this together.

Hi all,
I've been mired in a "funk" lately, so haven't been around much, sorry. I'll get over it eventually. When I saw this discussion, I felt a need to post, because it's about two of my favorite subjects - food and math. ;-)

Missed you and glad to see you back around.

Hope the funk is clearing. Happy to oblige you with gratuitous mathematics

Tying this all back to Lisa's original concept. Yes, your math seems sound and logical. But only as far as "theory" goes. Because the types of food, and the carb percentages are not exact, and inconsistent. On paper it works, but I don't think it works in practice. Carl

That's why I said I'm no nutritionist, just a math nut. :lol:

I agree differentiating between a couple percentage points is probably useless due to the slop. The chili example is an excellent one. It was useful for me (YMMV) trying to steer Leo with two open cans of food in front of me, and changing the ratios as his BGs stabilize from more HC to more LC....before I had a better handle on what MC really meant, and what to throw into a falling cat at what part of the cycle. I have to go over to maxshouse.com - I don't think I've been there.

Thanks a bunch for your input!

Lisa & Leo

 

[rhiannon and shadow (GA)]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 +4 166 PMPS 139

you were probably typing and didn't see what my DH said.


really like the "gratuitous mathematics"

 

[Lisa & Leo]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 HC+LC Carb % math

I'm tryng to get my Dh to come. He'd rather debate about football or bicycles or politics, he said. :roll:

But as he keeps followiing me reiterating what he thinks.

He thinks you are confusing percentages with grams.

This is all he is going to say. He doesn't want in the discussion. So he sat and typed this.

If you put a scoop of ice cream into a glass of water you have made a yummy water float and you have changed the percentage of carbs but you have not changed the amount of carbs you have consumed. Water has zero and let's say we use a 1000 g of water. A scoop of ice cream (Blue Bell, is there any better?) has 22 grams in a 77 gram serving. If I eat it by itself that's 28.6% carbs. I add it to the water and that's 2.0% carbs but I still cumsumed the 22 grams.


The physiological response is going to be to the 22 grams, not the 2 % .

HI Rhiannon - sorry, I did miss your post!

Ok, I see what your DH is saying. There a common misunderstanding here - we're talking percentage of CALORIES due to carbs, not percentage of carbs by weight. They are different, and his calculation of 28.6% is not the calculation we're doing. He is doing percent by weight - we are doing percent by calorie. Binky's/Dr. Lisa's charts (by calorie percentage) aren't like normal food nutritional charts (by grams)

Also, using his example, we'd only be allowed to eat half of the ice cream float. Remember, our goal with the food was to create the same meal size (volume/mass, take your pick) of a new percentage by combining two different foods. Say I need to feed Leo 1 can of "MC" for breakfast. In my example, I combined 2 cans (a HC and a LC) to make the math easy, but I wouldn't feed Leo 2 cans, so I'd have to cut it in half and give him his regular 1 can serving size. (Ok, he really doesn't eat an entire can at one time - just the example!!!) Boy I hope that makes sense - I'm having trouble saying it as clearly as I can.

Thank him for chiming in - it's hard to work out a math conversation over the internet and through a spouse and confusions are bound to arise!

But as Carl relays from Dr. Lisa, there's so much slop in the actual numbers that the difference between 6% and 10% may be nothing, so this is just a math exercise. Unless of course you want to play around with spoons of HHHHHHC Karo :mrgreen:

Lisa

 

[carfurby (GA)]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 +4 166 PMPS 139 +1 117

Lisa thanks for starting this discussion. I haven't had time to read through it all yet, but will later. I hope Leo surfs safely for you tonight. Nice blues.

 

[Carl & Polly & Bob (GA)]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 HC+LC Carb % math

I'm tryng to get my Dh to come. He'd rather debate about football or bicycles or politics, he said. :roll:

But as he keeps followiing me reiterating what he thinks.

He thinks you are confusing percentages with grams.

This is all he is going to say. He doesn't want in the discussion. So he sat and typed this.

If you put a scoop of ice cream into a glass of water you have made a yummy water float and you have changed the percentage of carbs but you have not changed the amount of carbs you have consumed. Water has zero and let's say we use a 1000 g of water. A scoop of ice cream (Blue Bell, is there any better?) has 22 grams in a 77 gram serving. If I eat it by itself that's 28.6% carbs. I add it to the water and that's 2.0% carbs but I still cumsumed the 22 grams.


The physiological response is going to be to the 22 grams, not the 2 % .

That's true but two things are wrong with his example. One, he's assuming you're going to feed kitty two cans worth of food (he's consuming all the water, and all the ice cream in his example). So yes, he's going to get all the ice cream's carbs because he's eating all of ice cream's calories. The 2nd thing is that water is a bad example. No, it has no carbs, but it doesn't have any calories either, right? All he did was water down the ice cream with empty filler. If he only ate half the ice cream, it would still contain 28.6% calories from carbs, but he'd only be consuming 11 grams of it, so he'd be ingesting half as many carbs, and his BG wouldn't read "HI" on the meter a few minutes later. ;-)

Kitty is only consuming 3oz of food. Half of it is 1%, the other half is 18% (in the original recipe from the top of this condo) . If you took shrimp, which contains 0% carbs and an ounce and a half of it contains 42 calories. Substitute that for "water" in his example (but instead of mixing it with ice cream, mix it with an ounce and a half of Fancy Feast Beef Feast in Gravy) (18% kcal from carbs) which adds another 41 calories. You have 3oz of food, half of which is no-carb, half of which is 18%. 18% of half of it is the total carb intake. The other half of the calories consumed is carb-free. Kitty is consuming 83 calories. So the impact of eating all 3 oz is, in effect, 9% kcal from carbs, isn't it?

Carl

 

[rhiannon and shadow (GA)]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 +4 166 PMPS 139 +1 117

he quoted some mathmatical equation of weights and calories and I'm lost. he only added that water is zero calories for his example.
I can't even quote what he said..... it didn't stick for me. I wish I could because I think what he is saying makes sense.
(long before I met him, he was overweight and decided to lose weight by burning more calories than he takes in....He started cycling.
He pays a lot attention to his own calories, carbs, etc.. , eats lots of healthy crap that I wouldn't touch and rides his bike to work and
then again for enjoyment almost every day. He's been normal/skinny for the last 20 years so he's doing something right. )

He still doesn't agree with your argument but doesn't care enough to say it slow enough so I can type it. :evil:
or to get into the conversation. :roll:

I'm just going to play it safe for Shadow and keep the high carb foods from the new list out of my house.
It's not worth the risk to me to find outwho is right here, I just want Shadow otj and to keep her that way as long as I can.
If you were wrong and he was right, I'd be giving her something she should not have now.
If he's wrong and you are right, I kept to the food list and I'm going to get my cat to eat the lowest carbs she'll go for.
I don't have a reason to mix them anyway. She's got at least 12 right now that she does like plus a few here that she's not so fond of.

 

[Carl & Polly & Bob (GA)]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 +4 166 PMPS 139 +1 117

I'm just going to play it safe for Shadow and keep the high carb foods from the new list out of my house.

Rhiannon,
Yes, this is just a mental exercise. It's much easier to just look on the chart and buy a MC food if you need one.
I agree with you. Other than as a resource to raise BG quickly when needed, HC and MC food are best left on the shelves at the grocery store.

(long before I met him, he was overweight and decided to lose weight by burning more calories than he takes in....He started cycling.
He pays a lot attention to his own calories, carbs, etc.. , eats lots of healthy crap that I wouldn't touch and rides his bike to work and
then again for enjoyment almost every day. He's been normal/skinny for the last 20 years so he's doing something right. )

That's awesome, and kudos to him for taking on that challenge and especially for succeeding!

Carl

 

[Lisa & Leo]

Re: 10/09 Leo AMPS 420 +2 229 +4 166 PMPS 139 +1 117

Rhiannon - I'm sorry - it seems like I upset you or got you in the middle of me being a math nerd with your DH, and I didn't mean to make it seem like that. Like Carl says, this was a mental exercise, and you're right that there are tons of options before you'd have to consider mixing anything.

I'm sorry that I got you stressed out.

Lisa

 

[rhiannon and shadow (GA)]

No worries.
I'm not stressing out about it.

He's just being a "Man". ( sorry Carl :lol: )

I ignore him when he follows me around talking about the N.O. Saints. I could care less about football.
He does analytical stuff all day at work so I understand him not wanting more of it when he gets home from work.
He thinks I'm too obsessed with FDMB and my cat. Too bad!!

I've read to him all the posts and he'll say .. blah blah blah that's wrong because blahblahblah and I guess I need a tape recorder ... :lol:
That way I could share it..

guess we need a nutritionist to weigh in.

 

[Lisa & Leo]

Rhiannon - glad to hear. No tape recorders! No incriminating evidence! :mrgreen:

Hi Carla - sorry I didn't reply - we are trying hard to surf so I can get some sleep tonight. Have a good one, too.

 

[Carl & Polly & Bob (GA)]

No worries.
I'm not stressing out about it.

He's just being a "Man". ( sorry Carl :lol: )

:lol: It took me about twenty years to figure out when my wife said "Carl, you're such a MAN..." that it was actually an insult and not an ego booster
:lol:
Carl

 

[rhiannon and shadow (GA)]

Carl. I'm sure you've had the same about "women"... hurumph....


I can prove it.
Lisa, Can I tell you about my latest pair of shoes. fuschia, with dark purple on the edges. Nice supple leather.


are your eyes glazing over, Carl? :lol:

That's one of my favorite jokes on old Scrubs episodes. Women start talking about shoes and the men immediately tune out
and can't hear anything else they say..... :lol:
Then they can talk about anything they want after that.... :lol:

 

[Lisa & Leo]

Carl. I'm sure you've had the same about "women"... hurumph....


I can prove it.
Lisa, Can I tell you about my latest pair of shoes. fuschia, with dark purple on the edges. Nice supple leather.


are your eyes glazing over, Carl? :lol:

That's one of my favorite jokes on old Scrubs episodes. Women start talking about shoes and the men immediately tune out
and can't hear anything else they say..... :lol:
Then they can talk about anything they want after that.... :lol:

Oh gosh - I remember that! To true!