- Messages
- 14,298
- Type of diabetes
- I reversed my Type 2
- Treatment type
- Diet only
Quite a depressing read.. still going on about sat fat and CVD... still mealy mouthed about low carb..
Where’s the dislike button when you need it?!
The article isn't saying anywhere that carrbs are essential, or any of the morre extreme statements we have all read in the past. There is also a recognition in the article that medics don't know too much about nutrition, and maybe struggle forr time to explain what they do understand.
There's also talk, recognising remission. That was unheard of reltively recently.
The positives I took from it were the admissions that "they" know they don't know a lot. Perhaps the dogma is softening.
Turning a cruise ship doesn't happen on its own footprint.
Don't know why the online course is aimed at doctors, I've never seen one in 6 yrs about my diabetes.
I have seen a nurse, once. She gave me my flu shot last year. She asked why I was there, and I told her it was because I was diabetic. She seemed quite surprised she had not seen me before, as she was the diabetic nurse. The doctor I see regularly is the practise diabetic specialist, and she is very keen to ask me what I have been doing to improve my situation and she even takes notes! On our first meeting, I told her what I proposed to do with changing my diet to a low carb one, and making my own food from basic ingredients so I could control it directly. She then gave me the URL of this site, not "the other one." I take from that the thought that we need to encourage GP's to be interested, just as much as they need to encourage us. It must be a soul destroying experience for them to dispense good advice only to see it ignored, as much as it is for us to meet a rushed and disillusioned doctor. Nurses must be equally likely to be struggling with what can often be a complex set of problems. All of this with unsympathetic time and cost constraints. Isn't life fun?I've only seen a nurse twice. Once, litererally at diagnosis, and the other a few months later, when I requested it (long story, I'll spare you), but since then, I have only ever had diabetes related conversations with GPs.
To be honest, dawnmc, many of the diabetes nurses folks see are practise nurses who are lumbered with dealing with T2s, just as they are probably lumbered with the asthma, COPD and whatever else clinics. I feel positive much of the messaging they deliver comes from their management line - the GPs, so GPs do need to know, as a first priority, in my view.
I know this is wrong but I started reading the piece and within minutes all my brain was getting was blah, blah, blah. If the piece was alluding to the recent Swiss Re Conference then it seemed to me that there was little consensus and quite a bit of bias with regard to upsetting the status quo. And as to proof of sustainability and long term studies into particular diets then where are said studies into Eatwell or CICO or Low Fat Diets?
On my darkest days (today is looking like it may be one) I sometimes think that these people would rather hold onto to their dogma at the cost of n=1s quality of life rather than admit that their guidelines simply do not bear scrutiny thus putting their reputations (and careers?) In jeopardy. But I am in a low, glass half empty mood.
I guess it is half glass syndrome here and mine today appears half full. I read it was admitting to a limited degree of consensus because of the lack of evidence (low carb and eatwell and low fat etc etc). And seeking to go get the evidence it lacks. Though a fair amount of the consensus did include the fact the low carb has had positive results, without trashing the current guidelines I know. The establishment will always be slow to change the status quo, but at least they are questioning it rather than complete denial. Slowly.
Also the main issues with low carb seem to be based around compliance and long term achieability. I suspect many on this forum by the very nature of seeking information here are well motivated and thus succeed. Those with less information or motivation could well squew the success figures downwards compared to us here thus cause the hesitation in the officials.
I know this is wrong but I started reading the piece and within minutes all my brain was getting was blah, blah, blah. If the piece was alluding to the recent Swiss Re Conference then it seemed to me that there was little consensus and quite a bit of bias with regard to upsetting the status quo. And as to proof of sustainability and long term studies into particular diets then where are said studies into Eatwell or CICO or Low Fat Diets?
On my darkest days (today is looking like it may be one) I sometimes think that these people would rather hold onto to their dogma at the cost of n=1s quality of life rather than admit that their guidelines simply do not bear scrutiny thus putting their reputations (and careers?) In jeopardy. But I am in a low, glass half empty mood.
Bearing in mind the process to put such a paper together, then the Peer review process etc., the Swiss Re conference was way, way to recent to have impacted on this piece in any way.
I’m doing no such thing.It is simply too convenient to blame the victim for non-compliance...