Ivor Cummins.

[Oldvatr]

--------->

I sort of want to quote the Guardian article from an earlier post verbatim here, but it's a long read (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin) and basically posits that our high-and-climbing incidents of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and various other health-service-destroying nasties are a result of bad information that was taken up by those in authority and handed out to the masses.
------->

.

Can I suggest we share this link on our social media pages such as Facebook or twitter.

 

[JohnEGreen]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-carbohydrates-and-health-report
If not getting this, then a search on sacn in theur searchbar will bring up a list of goodies.

There is also a report on sugar
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacns-sugars-and-health-recommendations-why-5

Edit to add:
Prof Ian Macdonald who was instrumental in the sacn reports is a diabetes specialist (apparently)
http://www.thesugarreductionsummit.co.uk/speaker/prof-ian-macdonald/

Thanks @Oldvatr got it all now.

 

[CherryAA]

It's an interesting perspective, @Winnie53 , and I'm grateful for your reply.

I, too, spent the last 5 years volunteering in a non-profit (though, luckily, fundraising was but a fraction of our time - annual monitoring was a far bigger bugbear) and the thing I learned from the people we worked for - families with disabled children - is that if you give people the right information, they'll generally follow it. And the more authority that information has when it's delivered, the faster that process will be.

I sort of want to quote the Guardian article from an earlier post verbatim here, but it's a long read (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin) and basically posits that our high-and-climbing incidents of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and various other health-service-destroying nasties are a result of bad information that was taken up by those in authority and handed out to the masses.

There is a particularly interesting (and relevant) paragraph:



The article goes on to demonstrate how the "Low fat, more carbs!" lobby gained control and, as a direct result of that powerfully-delivered advice, people followed it.

I have no doubt at all that if the advice changed suddenly to reflect actual nutritional science, people would manage it. And even if all people didn't (and of course they won't), at least the burden on our essential services would diminish.



I would say that the majority of diabetics (reading about the experiences of so many people when it comes to engaging with health services on this site alone) don't understand why they need to. And if they do, they're not then given the (relatively cheap compared to amputation, dialysis and transplant alternatives) tools to see the effect giving that stuff up has upon them.

I swear, if every T2 upon diagnosis was given a meter and the suggestion that they cut out carbs for 2 weeks - even without the tricky scientific information - we'd not even be having this conversation. Honestly, direct them to this website, prepare and care for them through any ketoflu they experience and, boom, you've got a lifer.

It's not about punishing lifestyles, or even statutory services who followed advice given them by "nutritional experts" (again, the article clearly demonstrates the bias and fashionability of nutritional "science" and how much of what we're told isn't based upon any science at all.), but giving people half a chance to stop poisoning themselves and their families and choose a lifestyle based upon honestly-gained information. If they're given the facts and still choose to eat carbs, that's their affair, and we live in a country that allows personal choice, whether good or bad. But as it is, LCHF is dismissed as a faddy or crash diet by the NHS and the information that people really need to heal themselves isn't getting out there. They/we have no choice at all.

I think this forum very clearly demonstrates that people, when given the correct information in a format they can understand, will try to do the "right" thing. And, sure, there's personal choice and the dopamine feedback loop and decades of imprinted nutritional advice to take into account, but everyone here has overcome that and reduced their personal risk of complication, so why shouldn't we expect that anyone can? Are we saying people on this site are super-special? No. We're all just people.

But currently, it's not even being talked about. There is absolutely zero discussion of another way to manage diabetes. Not in the press, not on TV, not on the NHS website, nowhere. And yet the answer to the imminent NHS crisis is carb reduction! The impact that carbs have on your body - from birth - has been and continues to be carefully hidden until some maverick like Dr Unwin or John Ludkin come along and risk their careers and reputations trying to drag that truth into the light.

That's not science. And that's not supply-and-demand. That's an industrial drug ring, working hard and paying good money to ensure we get addicted as infants and stay addicted to what they're peddling. We've been raised to be addicts, and that's not a clear and unbaised choice that anyone got to make. While I generally don't believe in "evil", I genuinely don't believe these companies have the interests of their consumers at heart. And I'm not saying "Sue them out of spite!" but "Sue them because they've been culpable for 40 years for a conspiracy that is still causing millions of deaths and money is the only language they speak".

I really admire your support group endeavour, Winnie. I wish you every luck (and whatever assistance I can offer from a distance). But you're swimming against the tide in a pool filled with people who just don't understand how the information they've been given all their lives is wrong. The authority of the message is too great to easily overcome; by the time you're facing life-changing complications, I guess you figure you've got not much else to lose, so why not think about low carbing?

But until this very simple, highly effective, drug-free solution is given the time of day, nothing is going to change. And yes, I think we should all be angry about that.


@Oldvatr : That sugar report absolutely blows my mind, too. It even acknowledges that, though carbs are made of sugar (excepting dietary fibre) it's only going to focus on "free sugars":



So it's not actually concentrating on - or even looking at - carbs at all, but sliding past the starches (which it acknowledges are also made of sugars, but they're not "free" sugars and so, for the purpose of this particular review, don't count) and looking only at the refined white stuff.

Also, they don't actually list the research papers and studies they included in the literature they have based their review upon. So you can't tell whether they selected their source material with or without bias, though one paragraph ion particular sort of gives the game away:



Sorry. Went on a bit of a rant at this. Looks like my son is going to get a diagnosis of T2 soon, too. And all because I followed nutritional advice. People should be angry about this. We've been lied to and literally poisoned for years - even after the people who came up with the advice in the first place admitted that it was probably incorrect (also in the Guardian article).

I feel just like you about this - its why I volunteered for the Tim Noakes survey, and why I keep trying to persuade A1Cnow to get involved in this fight as they have the tools for people to see what is going on. I do think that the source of this should be a class action suit in the USA using the lawyers who worked on asbestosis - I'm not in the US but I'm convinced that that will be where the litigation starts.

I also think with each passing month it becomes harder and harder for institutions to ignore this and that is why diabetes.org.uk has recently put something out about low carb - they are currently trying to protect themselves from the inevitable backlash that is going to come. The financial world is starting to recognise this putting out warnings against some of the processed food industry - we are going to see a 20 year battle play out on this - just like we did for tobacco and asbestosis. While it happens we all of us need to try to get more and more people to understand individually and through this website and twitter.

All of the main players in this battle- are on Twitter. I follow many of them and make a point of retweeting this stuff to everyone I know. We should all do the same.

 

[Winnie53]

@SockFiddler I do understand, but it's not just the carbs that's making us fat and/or diabetic. It's also the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) including plastics, herbicides, pesticides, and other toxins, also heavy metals that are now in our foods. It took me a year to find healthy sources of protein, carbs, and fats that are comparable to the foods my grandparents ate.

I also think perhaps your underestimating the addictive nature of highly processed carbohydrates. I've been on the LCHF diet for two and a half years now. It's challenging to stay off the sugary and starchy foods. I'm reasonably successful, but many of our group members are still struggling. I think what you're seeing here on this forum is not reflective of the broader diabetic community or most of the diabetic websites and forums, that's why I'm here.

Joseph Pizzorno, N.D. has been lecturing on POPs and heavy metals for years...

Dave Asprey of Bullet Proof did a more indepth interview that's also an interesting listen...

I think we each need to choose our own path, and yours will be different from mine, but our first priority needs to be our personal health.

 

[SockFiddler]

@SockFiddler I do understand, but it's not just the carbs that's making us fat and/or diabetic. It's also the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) including plastics, herbicides, pesticides, and other toxins, also heavy metals that are now in our foods. It took me a year to find healthy sources of protein, carbs, and fats that are comparable to the foods my grandparents ate.

I also think perhaps your underestimating the addictive nature of highly processed carbohydrates. I've been on the LCHF diet for two and a half years now. It's challenging to stay off the sugary and starchy foods. I'm reasonably successful, but many of our group members are still struggling. I think what you're seeing here on this forum is not reflective of the broader diabetic community or most of the diabetic websites and forums, that's why I'm here.

I think we each need to choose our own path, and yours will be different from mine, but our first priority needs to be our personal health.

It is a personal choice (or challenge!) and that's as it should be. But people can't make good, informed choices without good, trustworthy information to base them on. Pollution, plastics, organic farming, heavy metals in fish... they've all received extensive media coverage which has led to political and then social change. Why, in 40 years, hasn't the same process happened with carbs?

And, of course, we've not talked about the political flip-side of LCHF yet... sustainability issues, affordability and the notion that, yes, people would be healthier (eating according to their biology, not against it) but we have far too many people to all be able to eat that way...

A different kettle of fish for another day.

Can I suggest we share this link on our social media pages such as Facebook or twitter.

I've actually just written to the journalist, Ian Leslie, and challenged him to finish what he started. Let's see whether he replies!

I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion - thank you.

 

[Winnie53]

I've done a few posts on this subject - in particular finding your local butchers and getting hold of chicken carcasses and bones for broth. Most butchers are clued into this now and will sell you a big bag of the stuff for a couple of pounds - there is enough meat and nutrition on there to feed yourself for a week -

Here's the problem, POPs and heavy metals accumulate in the bones too, so when drinking bone broth, it's important to process the toxins out of your body quickly so it's not reabsorbed: stay hydrated, eat plant foods regularly so fiber is present to bind with the toxins, and "keep things moving" through the bowels.

I'm in menopause now and the collagen loss has been horrific. Bone broth is very important for me. I'm glad your educating people how to source bones and make broth. That's awesome!

 

[CherryAA]

Here's the problem, POPs and heavy metals accumulate in the bones too, so when drinking bone broth, it's important to process the toxins out of your body quickly so it's not reabsorbed: stay hydrated, eat plant foods regularly so fiber is present to bind with the toxins, and "keep things moving" through the bowels.

I'm in menopause now and the collagen loss has been horrific. Bone broth is very important for me. I'm glad your educating people how to source bones and make broth. That's awesome!

many people don't realise that if you buy chicken carcasses from the butcher, roast them just like whole chicken, you get a kilo of perfectly good meat off the carcasses for use in any number of recipes. we are all so used to not even seeing this stuff we don't appreciate the only difference between it and the regular stuff sold is that you have to behave like Henry VIII to eat it ( and grand fun it is too ) my husband and I had many a chicken carcass salad - even before I was diagnosed - a bit messy maye but ultra cheap I've never paid more than 2 pounds for a bag and that includes up to 7 carcasses.

I then simmer the bones over night - and divide the result into two. One lot goes to add to the cats food to give them some proper nutrient, the rest gets used as the base stock for other dishes - often above ground vegeteble soups with a bit of onion and garlic . Its very moreish - so I have to be careful about portion sizes.

 

[Winnie53]

SockFiddler, the paleo, low carb, and ketogenic diets are getting press now. When I was re-diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in early 2015, within a half hour of looking around on the internet, I began to connect with the information I needed so it's much, much better now than it was when I was diagnosed with pre-diabetes in 2002.

Back then we only had Richard Bernstien and Ron Rosedale teaching the low carb lifestyle to diabetics through their books, Michael and Mary Dan Eades too. And unfortunately for me, I wasn't aware of their books.

Today, with the explosion of information on the internet, those who want to learn how to eat for diabetes can find the information and support they need, so that's good.

 

[Dark Horse]

It's an interesting perspective, @Winnie53 , and I'm grateful for your reply.

I, too, spent the last 5 years volunteering in a non-profit (though, luckily, fundraising was but a fraction of our time - annual monitoring was a far bigger bugbear) and the thing I learned from the people we worked for - families with disabled children - is that if you give people the right information, they'll generally follow it. And the more authority that information has when it's delivered, the faster that process will be.

I sort of want to quote the Guardian article from an earlier post verbatim here, but it's a long read (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin) and basically posits that our high-and-climbing incidents of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and various other health-service-destroying nasties are a result of bad information that was taken up by those in authority and handed out to the masses.

There is a particularly interesting (and relevant) paragraph:



The article goes on to demonstrate how the "Low fat, more carbs!" lobby gained control and, as a direct result of that powerfully-delivered advice, people followed it.

I have no doubt at all that if the advice changed suddenly to reflect actual nutritional science, people would manage it. And even if all people didn't (and of course they won't), at least the burden on our essential services would diminish.



I would say that the majority of diabetics (reading about the experiences of so many people when it comes to engaging with health services on this site alone) don't understand why they need to. And if they do, they're not then given the (relatively cheap compared to amputation, dialysis and transplant alternatives) tools to see the effect giving that stuff up has upon them.

I swear, if every T2 upon diagnosis was given a meter and the suggestion that they cut out carbs for 2 weeks - even without the tricky scientific information - we'd not even be having this conversation. Honestly, direct them to this website, prepare and care for them through any ketoflu they experience and, boom, you've got a lifer.

It's not about punishing lifestyles, or even statutory services who followed advice given them by "nutritional experts" (again, the article clearly demonstrates the bias and fashionability of nutritional "science" and how much of what we're told isn't based upon any science at all.), but giving people half a chance to stop poisoning themselves and their families and choose a lifestyle based upon honestly-gained information. If they're given the facts and still choose to eat carbs, that's their affair, and we live in a country that allows personal choice, whether good or bad. But as it is, LCHF is dismissed as a faddy or crash diet by the NHS and the information that people really need to heal themselves isn't getting out there. They/we have no choice at all.

I think this forum very clearly demonstrates that people, when given the correct information in a format they can understand, will try to do the "right" thing. And, sure, there's personal choice and the dopamine feedback loop and decades of imprinted nutritional advice to take into account, but everyone here has overcome that and reduced their personal risk of complication, so why shouldn't we expect that anyone can? Are we saying people on this site are super-special? No. We're all just people.

But currently, it's not even being talked about. There is absolutely zero discussion of another way to manage diabetes. Not in the press, not on TV, not on the NHS website, nowhere. And yet the answer to the imminent NHS crisis is carb reduction! The impact that carbs have on your body - from birth - has been and continues to be carefully hidden until some maverick like Dr Unwin or John Ludkin come along and risk their careers and reputations trying to drag that truth into the light.

That's not science. And that's not supply-and-demand. That's an industrial drug ring, working hard and paying good money to ensure we get addicted as infants and stay addicted to what they're peddling. We've been raised to be addicts, and that's not a clear and unbaised choice that anyone got to make. While I generally don't believe in "evil", I genuinely don't believe these companies have the interests of their consumers at heart. And I'm not saying "Sue them out of spite!" but "Sue them because they've been culpable for 40 years for a conspiracy that is still causing millions of deaths and money is the only language they speak".

I really admire your support group endeavour, Winnie. I wish you every luck (and whatever assistance I can offer from a distance). But you're swimming against the tide in a pool filled with people who just don't understand how the information they've been given all their lives is wrong. The authority of the message is too great to easily overcome; by the time you're facing life-changing complications, I guess you figure you've got not much else to lose, so why not think about low carbing?

But until this very simple, highly effective, drug-free solution is given the time of day, nothing is going to change. And yes, I think we should all be angry about that.


@Oldvatr : That sugar report absolutely blows my mind, too. It even acknowledges that, though carbs are made of sugar (excepting dietary fibre) it's only going to focus on "free sugars":



So it's not actually concentrating on - or even looking at - carbs at all, but sliding past the starches (which it acknowledges are also made of sugars, but they're not "free" sugars and so, for the purpose of this particular review, don't count) and looking only at the refined white stuff.

Also, they don't actually list the research papers and studies they included in the literature they have based their review upon. So you can't tell whether they selected their source material with or without bias, though one paragraph ion particular sort of gives the game away:



Sorry. Went on a bit of a rant at this. Looks like my son is going to get a diagnosis of T2 soon, too. And all because I followed nutritional advice. People should be angry about this. We've been lied to and literally poisoned for years - even after the people who came up with the advice in the first place admitted that it was probably incorrect (also in the Guardian article).

Did you manage the read the SACN report on carbohydrates (rather than the one that focused on sugars)?

I'll try posting the link again, I don't know why it wasn't working last time.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-carbohydrates-and-health-report

 

[Winnie53]

many people don't realise that if you buy chicken carcasses from the butcher, roast them just like whole chicken, you get a kilo of perfectly good meat off the carcasses for use in any number of recipes. we are all so used to not even seeing this stuff we don't appreciate the only difference between it and the regular stuff sold is that you have to behave like Henry VIII to eat it ( and grand fun it is too ) my husband and I had many a chicken carcass salad - even before I was diagnosed - a bit messy maye but ultra cheap I've never paid more than 2 pounds for a bag and that includes up to 7 carcasses.

I then simmer the bones over night - and divide the result into two. One lot goes to add to the cats food to give them some proper nutrient, the rest gets used as the base stock for other dishes - often above ground vegeteble soups with a bit of onion and garlic . Its very moreish - so I have to be careful about portion sizes.

I'm so glad you're thinking of your cats too. The animals are as sick as we are now. It's so sad.

My husband and I make crock pot chicken. Two yams with skins on at the bottom, whole chicken on top, covered with the glass lid. We cook it on high for 6 1/2 to 7 hours. It makes the best meat broth, though it's a bit of an acquired taste.

 

[CherryAA]

I'm so glad you're thinking of your cats too. The animals are as sick as we are now. It's so sad.

My husband and I make crock pot chicken. Two yams with skins on at the bottom, whole chicken on top, covered with the glass lid. We cook it on high for 6 1/2 to 7 hours. It makes the best meat broth, though it's a bit of an acquired taste.

After I was diagnosed I looked into what they were being fed, including for a porky one - vet prescribed " low fat" obesity management food. I've since been trying to replace their food with carb freeoptions, but its a slow process as they are as addicted as i was and I can't get them to watch the Tim Noakes deposition hearings, they do love you tube , but only when is got birds o bird tables ! not graphs of insulin resistance .!

 

[SockFiddler]

I've since been trying to replace their food with carb freeoptions, but its a slow process as they are as addicted as i was and I can't get them to watch the Tim Noakes deposition hearings, they do love you tube , but only when is got birds o bird tables ! not graphs of insulin resistance .!

Seriously... these animals. They'll never get good jobs in the future if they're not prepared to apply themselves right now.

Read once (no idea where, sorry), that if we fed our domesticated animals - especially dogs - what they'd typically eat in the wild, they'd "love" us less. Food is a major thing for making dogs think we're both worth being nice to and obeying, and (let's be honest) we like them a little bit hungry because they're trying to please us (as opposed to cats who just sleep...) and giving them treats is fun.

So we decreased how much actual meat we give our beasts and pad it out with ash, bone meal, charcoal and other such nonsense and, in the article, it was presented as an everyone wins scenario: the dogs get lots of food, much of which they can't digest but, they get it often enough for it to not matter. We get to feed our pets twice a day which means they know we exist at least twice a day, and, of course, pet food manufacturers have loads and loads of customers.

I find how we treat our domestic pets compared to how "working" animals - particularly sled dogs really interesting. These are dogs who work in extreme cold, who run for miles and miles after days, sometimes weeks, or inactivity and whose diets are almost exclusively raw meat. They're extraordinarily healthy, long-lived animals. They might not enjoy the trappings of petdom, but they're happy enough to pull a sled for 50km, with no carbs in sight!

 

[CherryAA]

Seriously... these animals. They'll never get good jobs in the future if they're not prepared to apply themselves right now.

Read once (no idea where, sorry), that if we fed our domesticated animals - especially dogs - what they'd typically eat in the wild, they'd "love" us less. Food is a major thing for making dogs think we're both worth being nice to and obeying, and (let's be honest) we like them a little bit hungry because they're trying to please us (as opposed to cats who just sleep...) and giving them treats is fun.

So we decreased how much actual meat we give our beasts and pad it out with ash, bone meal, charcoal and other such nonsense and, in the article, it was presented as an everyone wins scenario: the dogs get lots of food, much of which they can't digest but, they get it often enough for it to not matter. We get to feed our pets twice a day which means they know we exist at least twice a day, and, of course, pet food manufacturers have loads and loads of customers.

I find how we treat our domestic pets compared to how "working" animals - particularly sled dogs really interesting. These are dogs who work in extreme cold, who run for miles and miles after days, sometimes weeks, or inactivity and whose diets are almost exclusively raw meat. They're extraordinarily healthy, long-lived animals. They might not enjoy the trappings of petdom, but they're happy enough to pull a sled for 50km, with no carbs in sight!

whereas one of mine just cost me a fortune in vets fees through a serious case of cystitis
One of the things I do not get, is that we ut our kids through years of schooling and yet none of us know anything about this stuff at the end of it. Its the MOST IMPORTANT thing we need to know if we are to grow up healthy - Its ridiculous .

 

[ickihun]

Doesnt matter who created

Brilliant.

Doesnt matter who created eat well plate as of who manufacturers tablets if nhs endorsing the treatment. They are liable.
Like I said "whose the idiot whose going to bankrupt the nhs?"

 

[Oldvatr]

Doesnt matter who created

Doesnt matter who created eat well plate as of who manufacturers tablets if nhs endorsing the treatment. They are liable.
Like I said "whose the idiot whose going to bankrupt the nhs?"

Disagree with the culprit being NHS. typical litigation goes to the originator, see
https://www.drugwatch.com/actos/litigation/

I suspect that at best it would only be a minor misdemeanor for supplying incorrect information, i.e. a negligence case at worst, and trying to prove the info as being incorrect will be very difficult. NHS will win that one as things stand, so it will be the person taking the court action that will pay the court costs for the defence as well as their own costs.

 

[Freema]

Seriously... these animals. They'll never get good jobs in the future if they're not prepared to apply themselves right now.

Read once (no idea where, sorry), that if we fed our domesticated animals - especially dogs - what they'd typically eat in the wild, they'd "love" us less. Food is a major thing for making dogs think we're both worth being nice to and obeying, and (let's be honest) we like them a little bit hungry because they're trying to please us (as opposed to cats who just sleep...) and giving them treats is fun.

So we decreased how much actual meat we give our beasts and pad it out with ash, bone meal, charcoal and other such nonsense and, in the article, it was presented as an everyone wins scenario: the dogs get lots of food, much of which they can't digest but, they get it often enough for it to not matter. We get to feed our pets twice a day which means they know we exist at least twice a day, and, of course, pet food manufacturers have loads and loads of customers.

I find how we treat our domestic pets compared to how "working" animals - particularly sled dogs really interesting. These are dogs who work in extreme cold, who run for miles and miles after days, sometimes weeks, or inactivity and whose diets are almost exclusively raw meat. They're extraordinarily healthy, long-lived animals. They might not enjoy the trappings of petdom, but they're happy enough to pull a sled for 50km, with no carbs in sight!

I dont Think People in general are starving their PETs at all , for dogs it is not the food that make them Bond it is being part of the group They live among and when being a PET dog it means it human family dogs are very intelligent gruopvækkende animals and so are People sand both kinds of animals has the abillity to Bond to others than their own kind of species

Sleigh dogs on the other hand is not considered pets, They still have a lot of the wulf instincts in them and children are told to keep away from them because these dogs sometimes eat the child that stumble ... those dogs are Kept for work and I guess because horses and cows can not thrive in the intense coldness of the artic areas... and by the way They do low to do the work of pulling the sleigh ....

 

[Alison Campbell]

I think this forum very clearly demonstrates that people, when given the correct information in a format they can understand, will try to do the "right" thing. And, sure, there's personal choice and the dopamine feedback loop and decades of imprinted nutritional advice to take into account, but everyone here has overcome that and reduced their personal risk of complication, so why shouldn't we expect that anyone can? Are we saying people on this site are super-special? No. We're all just people.

After almost 6 years of reading this forum, I wish I could see it through your eyes. I think this forum is a safe place for type 2's in a high carb world.

This forum took a long time to accept even moderate low carbs as a viable option and it was an unpleasant struggle.

Now this year for the first time we see doctors recommending this forum and not the other one. For the first time I see new members coming on complaining that their doctors have recommended that they reduce carbs. Shock horror!!!

Change is happening, this forum is still ahead of the curve and many people who don't like the message don't hang around.

 

[CherryAA]

After almost 6 years of reading this forum, I wish I could see it through your eyes. I think this forum is a safe place for type 2's in a high carb world.

This forum took a long time to accept even moderate low carbs as a viable option and it was an unpleasant struggle.

Now this year for the first time we see doctors recommending this forum and not the other one. For the first time I see new members coming on complaining that their doctors have recommended that they reduce carbs. Shock horror!!!

Change is happening, this forum is still ahead of the curve and many people who don't like the message don't hang around.

I agree that in practice like every other forum people who like the advice will say around and those that don't won't . I used to love this process as a consultant, as long as I gave strong advice it didn't matter much what it was. If I was right the client came back and thought I was a superstar, if I was wrong he disappeared and I never heard from him again!

There is a big plus for this forum though - that is that the advice does generally work. As a person diagnosed with a fasting blood sugar of 18.4 and no reading over 5.5 for the last 24 hours - I can vouch for it Its just a pity when people who could be helped decide not to join in.

 

[SockFiddler]

That's a really strong point, @AlisonCampbell (my tagging function is currently broken!)- no-one is obliged to remain here.

But, for me, the advice isn't the most powerful thing. The support and personal stories and the blogs and the cameraderie are all wonderful, but the "Eureka!" moment for me was when I finally understood the many forum sigs that chart people's progress. You can see it happening - literally just look at @CherryAA right above me. But people aren't just following a single set of instructions, but making up flexible plans that suit their lifestyles, from the hardcore fasters to the Ketone Kids to the athletes to the every day folks to who just want to feel better. It blew me away, absolutely destroyed and remaining skepticism in my mind.

Whatever (fascinating) discussions we enjoy here, the fact that so many posters have (bravely) allowed their journeys to be publicly available makes the message harder to deny.

And, ****, even if you don't want to low-carb or whatever, I hope that people still find value in the deep-rooted sense of community and mutual support that is everywhere here. It makes me sad to think that people don't find something they're looking for when they end up on this site.

 

[Alison Campbell]

And, ****, even if you don't want to low-carb or whatever, I hope that people still find value in the deep-rooted sense of community and mutual support that is everywhere here. It makes me sad to think that people don't find something they're looking for when they end up on this site.

Wish there was a yes, yes and yes! button

Many come back whether they have fallen of the wagon (like me), the wagon isn't working for them any more or they develop other conditions/ complications and are welcomed with open arms.