- Messages
- 2,950
- Type of diabetes
- Other
- Treatment type
- Diet only
- Dislikes
- Undeserving authority figures of all kinds and idiots.
Phoenix.
Appreciate the looking up.
The differences (or lack of) between the UK and ADA tables you present are interesting aren't they?
Lets put the GI thing to rest for a bit. I agree both positions say its a good and useful thing. The UK seems to rate it slightly higher than the Americans "A" versus "B" but that's all I've been saying so don't see any conflict. If its gone up in the Americans estimation in the last 5 years then fine I said I thought her statement was to extreme anyway.
Both systems as you say recommend portion or plate control. I have no preference in how a T2 gets control, just that they should. I have no experience if it would make a difference to insulin users so won't comment. I can see all applicable ways work including for "techie" people like me counting carbs. My recommendation would be the same as Sid which is which ever way works best for the individual. The Swedes also recommend portion control so can't argue with them!
What I would say is both sides do concentrate on carbohydrate control as priority "A" and even though the two tables look similar the text behind the scenes in the UK doc says something else.
So weasel words... "Although the total amount of carbohydrate ingested is the primary determinant of post-prandial blood glucose response"
Followed by.. "there is little evidence to support specific strategies for recommendations about carbohydrate intake in Type 2 diabetes."
Carefully ignoring the evidence that say the Swedes must have been happy with to come out with "Kost Vid Diabetes" and the 30% total carbs recommendation later made in the same year as the UK doc. They are also of course carefully ignoring what must have been similar evidence to make the ADA come out with its 130g / day recommendation this year.
Like me with low carbs Phoenix your GI does no better.
My point is Phoenix whichever side of the "carbs more important than GI" or "GI more important than carbs" when will these people ever make any decisions to change?
Another set of weasel words from page 16 (my underline)
You'd think reading that I'd be happy as effectively its kind of stating a LCHF message but the message is lost. What does "A modest reduction in carbohydrate intake" actually mean? The Swedes and the American GIVE it a measurable meaning 30% total carbs for the Swedes or 130g / day for the Americans.
It's just spin to keep the status quo. It sits on the fence neither recommending or disagreeing. No wonder I end up seeing a Nurse Nightshade. Poor woman is probably as confused as that document. :lol:
[Edited after Paul's comment]
Honestly Phoenix, putting aside our differences on emphasis of certain things and even the actual content of various health systems docs then don't you agree that compared to the Swedish "Kost Vid Diabetes" doc which states things in plain simple uncomplicated terms and offers clear advice that the UK one is a wishy washy thing that really doesn't know what its advising?
Appreciate the looking up.
The differences (or lack of) between the UK and ADA tables you present are interesting aren't they?
Lets put the GI thing to rest for a bit. I agree both positions say its a good and useful thing. The UK seems to rate it slightly higher than the Americans "A" versus "B" but that's all I've been saying so don't see any conflict. If its gone up in the Americans estimation in the last 5 years then fine I said I thought her statement was to extreme anyway.
Both systems as you say recommend portion or plate control. I have no preference in how a T2 gets control, just that they should. I have no experience if it would make a difference to insulin users so won't comment. I can see all applicable ways work including for "techie" people like me counting carbs. My recommendation would be the same as Sid which is which ever way works best for the individual. The Swedes also recommend portion control so can't argue with them!
What I would say is both sides do concentrate on carbohydrate control as priority "A" and even though the two tables look similar the text behind the scenes in the UK doc says something else.
Carbohydrate: Although the total amount of carbohydrate ingested is the primary
determinant of post-prandial blood glucose response, there is little evidence to support
specific strategies for recommendations about carbohydrate intake in Type 2 diabetes.
The efficacy of carbohydrate counting in those individuals with Type 2 diabetes treated
with insulin is largely unknown. Carbohydrate counting based on insulin to
carbohydrate ratio has been shown to be as effective in reducing HbA1c as a simple
algorithm based on self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) [123]
So weasel words... "Although the total amount of carbohydrate ingested is the primary determinant of post-prandial blood glucose response"
Followed by.. "there is little evidence to support specific strategies for recommendations about carbohydrate intake in Type 2 diabetes."
Carefully ignoring the evidence that say the Swedes must have been happy with to come out with "Kost Vid Diabetes" and the 30% total carbs recommendation later made in the same year as the UK doc. They are also of course carefully ignoring what must have been similar evidence to make the ADA come out with its 130g / day recommendation this year.
Like me with low carbs Phoenix your GI does no better.
• Glycaemic index: Low Gl diets have shown improvements in HbA1c of up to 0.5
per cent [77, 124], and the majority of studies have been performed in people with
Type 2 diabetes. Although two more recent randomised controlled trials have shown
no evidence of benefit of low GI to other strategies [125, 126]
My point is Phoenix whichever side of the "carbs more important than GI" or "GI more important than carbs" when will these people ever make any decisions to change?
Another set of weasel words from page 16 (my underline)
It is unclear what ideal proportion of macronutrients to recommend for optimal glycaemic
control for Type 2 diabetes, but total energy intake and weight loss are significant.
Monounsaturated fat can be substituted for carbohydrate without detrimental effect to
either lipids or glycaemic control, but saturated fat should be minimised [116, 117, 118,
120]. When protein is substituted for carbohydrate, short-term glycaemic control improves
[113,114]. A modest reduction in carbohydrate intake is associated with improvements in
glycaemic control and low carbohydrate diets can be particularly effective if associated with
weight loss.
You'd think reading that I'd be happy as effectively its kind of stating a LCHF message but the message is lost. What does "A modest reduction in carbohydrate intake" actually mean? The Swedes and the American GIVE it a measurable meaning 30% total carbs for the Swedes or 130g / day for the Americans.
It's just spin to keep the status quo. It sits on the fence neither recommending or disagreeing. No wonder I end up seeing a Nurse Nightshade. Poor woman is probably as confused as that document. :lol:
[Edited after Paul's comment]
Honestly Phoenix, putting aside our differences on emphasis of certain things and even the actual content of various health systems docs then don't you agree that compared to the Swedish "Kost Vid Diabetes" doc which states things in plain simple uncomplicated terms and offers clear advice that the UK one is a wishy washy thing that really doesn't know what its advising?