Balance - March April - Sat fat advice - May June also

[IanD]

When my Balance landed on the door mat I looked quickly through to find the interview with Trudi Deakin.
I must have missed it.

The nearest thing to a comment is on p. 45 about the BMJ article questioning the sat fat advice, & Balance rejects it:

"More recent, rigorous scientific research supports the case that too much sat fat is not good for us."
​

So folks, forget Trudi & her well-documented research & advice. Go back to stuffing the wholegrain starchy carbs with the resultant poor control & complications.

I wonder, how much sat fat is officially considered "too much?" There are, of course, no links to follow up.

And I'm still waiting for the DUK diet expert for phone me, as arranged with the young ladies who came to the Hounslow support group meeting over a month ago.

 

[jack412]

there can't be a link, because there is no such study. there is no association between dietary sat fat and blood fats ....other than carbs of course

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...=onepage&q=linoleic "in us body fat"&f=false
though the 'healthy grain oils' omega 6/linoleic acid is being stored at a much higher level in fat cells now..it isn't a stable fat and is said to cause problems

 

[Heathenlass]

I sometimes wish there was an " unlike " button. Not because of you, @IanD , but because of your news.

To play the devil's advocate , perhaps it will be in a later issue, but that doesn't excuse the poor diet advice given on page 45 , and twisting the article mentioned in the BMJ's Open Heart.

If you are interested, the article referred to is here :http://openheart.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000032.full?sid=8fad8a3e-3ab8-4c27-b466-2dbaf027a355.

I am unable to find any recent studies that contradict the article in BMJ , apart from some pseudo science given by Unilever, the manufacturers of Flora. Go figure ...

Signy

 

[IanD]

I sometimes wish there was an " unlike " button. Not because of you, @IanD , but because of your news.

To play the devil's advocate , perhaps it will be in a later issue, but that doesn't excuse the poor diet advice given on page 45 , and twisting the article mentioned in the BMJ's Open Heart.

If you are interested, the article referred to is here :http://openheart.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000032.full?sid=8fad8a3e-3ab8-4c27-b466-2dbaf027a355.

I am unable to find any recent studies that contradict the article in BMJ , apart from some pseudo science given by Unilever, the manufacturers of Flora. Go figure ...

Signy

Thanks for that link, Signy. January 2014 does seem fairly recent, but then Balance must have found data from January 2015 - like Trudi's new book.

I am disgusted that that Balance could totally ignore one of the leading diabetes dietians. Who do they think they are kidding? And whose health are they endangering?

 

[Daibell]

Would you expect anything different from DUK and Balance. They are stuck in a time warp of information based on weak or non-science.

 

[Syd]

When my Balance landed on the door mat I looked quickly through to find the interview with Trudi Deakin.
I must have missed it.

The nearest thing to a comment is on p. 45 about the BMJ article questioning the sat fat advice, & Balance rejects it:

"More recent, rigorous scientific research supports the case that too much sat fat is not good for us."
​

So folks, forget Trudi & her well-documented research & advice. Go back to stuffing the wholegrain starchy carbs with the resultant poor control & complications.

I wonder, how much sat fat is officially considered "too much?" There are, of course, no links to follow up.

And I'm still waiting for the DUK diet expert for phone me, as arranged with the young ladies who came to the Hounslow support group meeting over a month ago.

I am sorry that you missed your anticipated reading of Trudi Deakin's well considered views. To compensate here is her contribution to the debate in Practical Diabetes from 2013. http://www.practicaldiabetes.com/Sp...y 2013/Debate Deakin and CavanQ7_PD 2-col.pdf

To summarise Trudi's argument, she argues that the NHS's advice to eat starchy carbohydrates with every meal is good advice. She writes:

"There is evidence that a diet low in carbohydrate, deficient in wholegrains, water-soluble vitamins and some minerals, may result in nutritional deficiencies; arterial plaques and stiffness; hypertension, dyslipidaemia and insulin resistance; bone mineral loss; kidney, bladder, and/or urethra stones; increased levels of homocysteine, free fatty acids and non-esterified fatty acids.1,32–37 It may also affect the development and function of the central nervous system38 and adversely affect an individual’s general sense of wellbeing"
​

and later

"People with diabetes should receive structured education so that they may identify and incorporate fibrous starchy carbohydrate into their meals but ensure that carbohydrate is not eaten to excess. Consumption needs to be appropriate for bodyweight, physical activity levels and glycaemic control (usually between the RDA, 130g, and the GDA, 230g for women and 300g for men)."
​

@IanD hope that this is enough Trudi for the time being.

​

 

[Totto]

I am sorry that you missed your anticipated reading of Trudi Deakin's well considered views. To compensate here is her contribution to the debate in Practical Diabetes from 2013. http://www.practicaldiabetes.com/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/espdi/file/May 2013/Debate Deakin and CavanQ7_PD 2-col.pdf

To summarise Trudi's argument, she argues that the NHS's advice to eat starchy carbohydrates with every meal is good advice. She writes:

"There is evidence that a diet low in carbohydrate, deficient in wholegrains, water-soluble vitamins and some minerals, may result in nutritional deficiencies; arterial plaques and stiffness; hypertension, dyslipidaemia and insulin resistance; bone mineral loss; kidney, bladder, and/or urethra stones; increased levels of homocysteine, free fatty acids and non-esterified fatty acids.1,32–37 It may also affect the development and function of the central nervous system38 and adversely affect an individual’s general sense of wellbeing"
​

and later

"People with diabetes should receive structured education so that they may identify and incorporate fibrous starchy carbohydrate into their meals but ensure that carbohydrate is not eaten to excess. Consumption needs to be appropriate for bodyweight, physical activity levels and glycaemic control (usually between the RDA, 130g, and the GDA, 230g for women and 300g for men)."
​

@IanD hope that this is enough Trudi for the time being.

​

Hi Syd you need to move with times. Get yourself a copy of Dr Deakin's book "Eat Fat" from earlier this year.

 

[Syd]

Hi Syd you need to move with times. Get yourself a copy of Dr Deakin's book "Eat Fat" from earlier this year.

Thanks @Totto , but I have no wish to waste my money.

 

[Heathenlass]

I am sorry that you missed your anticipated reading of Trudi Deakin's well considered views. To compensate here is her contribution to the debate in Practical Diabetes from 2013. http://www.practicaldiabetes.com/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/espdi/file/May 2013/Debate Deakin and CavanQ7_PD 2-col.pdf

To summarise Trudi's argument, she argues that the NHS's advice to eat starchy carbohydrates with every meal is good advice. She writes:

"There is evidence that a diet low in carbohydrate, deficient in wholegrains, water-soluble vitamins and some minerals, may result in nutritional deficiencies; arterial plaques and stiffness; hypertension, dyslipidaemia and insulin resistance; bone mineral loss; kidney, bladder, and/or urethra stones; increased levels of homocysteine, free fatty acids and non-esterified fatty acids.1,32–37 It may also affect the development and function of the central nervous system38 and adversely affect an individual’s general sense of wellbeing"
​

and later

"People with diabetes should receive structured education so that they may identify and incorporate fibrous starchy carbohydrate into their meals but ensure that carbohydrate is not eaten to excess. Consumption needs to be appropriate for bodyweight, physical activity levels and glycaemic control (usually between the RDA, 130g, and the GDA, 230g for women and 300g for men)."
​

@IanD hope that this is enough Trudi for the time being.

​

It's certainly not the first time that medical and dietry advice has been reversed, and a number of HCP's globally have now changed what they previously advised because of the current way of thinking being based on flawed studies. In addition, case studies ( and people's experiences posted on this forum ) have shown that the current NHS dietry advice for diabetics just isn't working.

I believe it takes great belief and balls of steel for a HCP to entirely go against what they have previously stated and taught, publish their findings and jeopardise a lucrative NHS contract as a result.

People need to make their own minds up, but I feel this should come from an informed basis, with all of the evidence taken in to consideration.

Signy

 

[Syd]

It's certainly not the first time that medical and dietry advice has been reversed, and a number of HCP's globally have now changed what they previously advised because of the current way of thinking being based on flawed studies. In addition, case studies ( and people's experiences posted on this forum ) have shown that the current NHS dietry advice for diabetics just isn't working.

I believe it takes great belief and balls of steel for a HCP to entirely go against what they have previously stated and taught, publish their findings and jeopardise a lucrative NHS contract as a result.

People need to make their own minds up, but I feel this should come from an informed basis, with all of the evidence taken in to consideration.

Signy

Precisely @Heathenlass . I have made my own mind up on an informed basis. I can't with honesty say that I have taken ALL of the evidence into consideration as there is so much research out there but from my own personal experience the advice given in 2013 by Trudi was the correct advice for me to deal with my Type 2 Diabetes.

 

[dannyw]

Glad you've found what works for you Syd but Trudi Deakin's latest book pretty much does a complete 180 on her earlier advice. if you base your health on outdated information without keeping up to date you may end up missing out on the latest scientific studies. 10 years ago, I was happy using a landline, since then I've discovered mobile phones. Technology and ideas move fast nowadays. As for wasting your money, we still have libraries. Just a thought.

 

[Totto]

Precisely @Heathenlass . I have made my own mind up on an informed basis. I can't with honesty say that I have taken ALL of the evidence into consideration as there is so much research out there but from my own personal experience the advice given in 2013 by Trudi was the correct advice for me to deal with my Type 2 Diabetes.

No one argues with that, if it works for you, that's just fine. But you now know that her advice NOW is very different from the advice she gave a couple of years ago as she has updated herself on the research. And other will follow eventually as the message sinks in.

 

[Heathenlass]

We are all different , even with the same condition if a way works for you, and it seems to, then why change ? The problem is that despite the differences, the same advice is given to every person. Not everyone will research and experiment, taking the current NHS advice to be the only way .

As a Type 1, diagnosed before the current advice, I was taught to limit carbs, and fat was not seen as something to avoid. Only when I did try the current carb advice for a period of time did my control go haywire. I now do pretty much the same as I was originally taught, without going overboard on fat through personal preference . That works well for me and my control is excellent Having said that, back in the day the " low fat" culture didn't exist, you ate fat from the limited amount of choices available to you, unlike today with supermarkets and their huge aisles of too much choice.

I believe a challenge to established thinking is a good thing occasionally

Signy

 

[Heathenlass]

I used an analogy in another post :

[QUOTE


" Eat eggs. They're good for you ! In fact, go to work on an egg !"

" No. No eggs. Way baaaad for your cholesterol" Maybe egg white omelettes . Once a month "

" Eggs are fine ! They won't affect your cholesterol , chock full of protein and vitamins! "

" Your cholesterol is high. Eat eggs.


][/QUOTE]



Signy

 

[Syd]

@Totto I am not sure what research she has done between 2013 and the end of 2014. I am ploughing through a thread on the Low Carb forum to which she appears to have contributed, maybe I will find the answer there.

 

[iHs]

In the 60's to mid 80's......most insulin dependant diabetics used twice daily insulin regimes and needed to eat carb wisely at set times during the day to enable the insulin to control bg levels ok. It was never, eat what you want, whenever you want which is what the DAFNE carb counting courses usually lead people to think is possible, but of course the working hours of most people changed from 9am to 5pm to working at different times of the day and night and with that came an abundance of all sorts of food encluding the McDs, the PizzaHuts etc and people started to feel restricted and wanted to be able to eat the same food as their friends etc so in came Bolus Basal to deal with it all. But has Bolus Basal been the success that was hoped for it???????? No.......its an insulin regime that has caused so many problems, its unbelievable. Loads of people are now using pumps to deal with the fail rate of bolus basal and eating wisely and those who are not using pumps and are using injections are now starting to realise that as lovely as modern day food is, its not worth eating it if it causes bg to go very high and by injecting more bolus, bg levels drop too much causing the lows.

 

[Syd]

@Heathenlass I get your point with your eggs analogy. Maybe in a couple of years Trudi will be back on message.

I write as a T2 who quite frankly brought diabetes on himself. If I had followed the NHS diet with regard to carbs, calories etc I would not have got diabetes in the first place. Equally if I had gone LCHF I would not have got diabetes. The fact is I over indulged in fat and carbs and probably protein, I was HCHF. The sensible course was to eat less and move around more.

The problem I have with the LCHF fraternity is down to my own intuition. Any diet which promotes unlimited amounts of bacon yet frowns on the apple is suspect in my own humble opinion.

 

[Syd]

@dannyw Thank you, unfortunately (or fortunately) my library does not have a copy. I am prepared to wait until Trudi changes her mind again.

 

[IanD]

I am sorry that you missed your anticipated reading of Trudi Deakin's well considered views. To compensate here is her contribution to the debate in Practical Diabetes from 2013. http://www.practicaldiabetes.com/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/espdi/file/May 2013/Debate Deakin and CavanQ7_PD 2-col.pdf

To summarise Trudi's argument, she argues that the NHS's advice to eat starchy carbohydrates with every meal is good advice. She writes:

"There is evidence that a diet low in carbohydrate, deficient in wholegrains, water-soluble vitamins and some minerals, may result in nutritional deficiencies; arterial plaques and stiffness; hypertension, dyslipidaemia and insulin resistance; bone mineral loss; kidney, bladder, and/or urethra stones; increased levels of homocysteine, free fatty acids and non-esterified fatty acids.1,32–37 It may also affect the development and function of the central nervous system38 and adversely affect an individual’s general sense of wellbeing"
​

and later

"People with diabetes should receive structured education so that they may identify and incorporate fibrous starchy carbohydrate into their meals but ensure that carbohydrate is not eaten to excess. Consumption needs to be appropriate for bodyweight, physical activity levels and glycaemic control (usually between the RDA, 130g, and the GDA, 230g for women and 300g for men)."
​

@IanD hope that this is enough Trudi for the time being.

​

A year later Dr Deakin was speaking on the other side of the debate - & won the case by 70/30.

She clearly listened to her opponent, & to people like me who wrote to her & reviewed the case, including a comprehensive literature survey. As a result she changed her diet, AND her advice.

It would seem that she was teaching the "received wisdom" in her X-PERT course, but was prepared to change her advice when challenged.

 

[dannyw]

@dannyw Thank you, unfortunately (or fortunately) my library does not have a copy. I am prepared to wait until Trudi changes her mind again.

Any library will order the book if you request it. You must be slightly intrigued as you already know your local library doesn't stock it so I guess you've enquired. That's a good start. Desire to learn is often the toughest first step. Still, if you are happy with outdated information and it suits you, I'm pleased for you.