JoKalsbeek
Expert
Jim, I think you've got a problem then, as it seems unavoidable... We'll miss you though! <3I swear if I read one more time that obesity causes diabetes, my head is going to explode![]()
Jim, I think you've got a problem then, as it seems unavoidable... We'll miss you though! <3I swear if I read one more time that obesity causes diabetes, my head is going to explode![]()
Jim, I think you've got a problem then, as it seems unavoidable... We'll miss you though! <3
Oh, I know.... And I know the feeling. Right there with you!Seriously though it really grinds my gears. It’s about as useful as saying that lung cancer causes smoking.
![]()
(and seriously, too: You would be missed if your head exploded. Just saying'. )Seriously though it really grinds my gears. It’s about as useful as saying that lung cancer causes smoking.
![]()
But those who are unaware of it are not very likely to read this forum.Diabetes is a silent killer and most people only realise they have it after the damage has been done. It is aimed at those who have pre-diabetes but who are unaware of it.
My article was firstly written in Word, then copied and pasted from that into the Forum. I thought that members were allowed to express their personal opinion?
My comments were not intended to offend and I apologise if they did, but I strongly believe that trying to be PC can often be the biggest obstacle as was proved by the Fight Fat campaign in Newcastle.
Diabetes is a silent killer and most people only realise they have it after the damage has been done. It is aimed at those who have pre-diabetes but who are unaware of it. An obese lady in the Fight Fat program was still having difficulty going on a diet and exercising despite the fact that her father had just had his leg amputated due to being diabetic! Regardless of whether a person has or does not have diabetes it is essential to remain active.
Post edited by moderator.
Please refer to the Banting and Patrick Holford diets, the latter being a recognised dietician specialising in diabetics
No way would I recommend anyone who has a 5 meal a day dietary plan thanks.. or one that includes so much fruit.
Maybe you would care to read around the forum a little before imparting your views .. you may even learn something!
As I've suggested in other posts, I don't really agree with the whole pre-diabetes thing. It used to be called "borderline diabetes", then they changed the name. Problems I have with it are:
1) People diagnosed like this often think "I'm ok at the moment, just need to be a bit more careful", rather than modifying their diet properly.
2) The levels used to diagnose "pre-diabetes" are well above normal limits, not just a bit. The very most that a true non-diabetic would record as an HbA1c is about 36 according to most medical research, yet we suggest figures in the 40's are merely "pre" diabetic. I think that many people diagnosed as pre-diabetic would fail an oral glucose tolerance test; not necessarily at the +2 hours stage, but under the original rule (when blood was tested every 15 mins during the test) that stated that "any reading above 11.1 at any stage indicated diabetes"
3) Cynically, I believe NICE and the NHS like to have a pre-diabetes classification because it avoids them having to declare the true number of diabetics and ruining their numbers.
To me, pre-diabetes is just diabetes caught early, and more easily managed if approached under the same vigour as any other diabetes.
Don't mean to upset anyone here, but I hate the idea that some (probably not those on here) bury their head in the sand a little.
As I've suggested in other posts, I don't really agree with the whole pre-diabetes thing. It used to be called "borderline diabetes", then they changed the name. Problems I have with it are:
1) People diagnosed like this often think "I'm ok at the moment, just need to be a bit more careful", rather than modifying their diet properly.
2) The levels used to diagnose "pre-diabetes" are well above normal limits, not just a bit. The very most that a true non-diabetic would record as an HbA1c is about 36 according to most medical research, yet we suggest figures in the 40's are merely "pre" diabetic. I think that many people diagnosed as pre-diabetic would fail an oral glucose tolerance test; not necessarily at the +2 hours stage, but under the original rule (when blood was tested every 15 mins during the test) that stated that "any reading above 11.1 at any stage indicated diabetes"
3) Cynically, I believe NICE and the NHS like to have a pre-diabetes classification because it avoids them having to declare the true number of diabetics and ruining their numbers.
To me, pre-diabetes is just diabetes caught early, and more easily managed if approached under the same vigour as any other diabetes.
Don't mean to upset anyone here, but I hate the idea that some (probably not those on here) bury their head in the sand a little.
I have come to similar conclusions in a short space of time. What I seem to see is the division between the two being used to avoid funding the support of or treatment of those in the Prediabetic category, when it is important for the nation as a whole aswell as the individual to do just that.As I've suggested in other posts, I don't really agree with the whole pre-diabetes thing. It used to be called "borderline diabetes", then they changed the name. Problems I have with it are:
1) People diagnosed like this often think "I'm ok at the moment, just need to be a bit more careful", rather than modifying their diet properly.
2) The levels used to diagnose "pre-diabetes" are well above normal limits, not just a bit. The very most that a true non-diabetic would record as an HbA1c is about 36 according to most medical research, yet we suggest figures in the 40's are merely "pre" diabetic. I think that many people diagnosed as pre-diabetic would fail an oral glucose tolerance test; not necessarily at the +2 hours stage, but under the original rule (when blood was tested every 15 mins during the test) that stated that "any reading above 11.1 at any stage indicated diabetes"
3) Cynically, I believe NICE and the NHS like to have a pre-diabetes classification because it avoids them having to declare the true number of diabetics and ruining their numbers.
To me, pre-diabetes is just diabetes caught early, and more easily managed if approached under the same vigour as any other diabetes.
Don't mean to upset anyone here, but I hate the idea that some (probably not those on here) bury their head in the sand a little.
As I've suggested in other posts, I don't really agree with the whole pre-diabetes thing. It used to be called "borderline diabetes", then they changed the name. Problems I have with it are:
1) People diagnosed like this often think "I'm ok at the moment, just need to be a bit more careful", rather than modifying their diet properly.
2) The levels used to diagnose "pre-diabetes" are well above normal limits, not just a bit. The very most that a true non-diabetic would record as an HbA1c is about 36 according to most medical research, yet we suggest figures in the 40's are merely "pre" diabetic. I think that many people diagnosed as pre-diabetic would fail an oral glucose tolerance test; not necessarily at the +2 hours stage, but under the original rule (when blood was tested every 15 mins during the test) that stated that "any reading above 11.1 at any stage indicated diabetes"
3) Cynically, I believe NICE and the NHS like to have a pre-diabetes classification because it avoids them having to declare the true number of diabetics and ruining their numbers.
To me, pre-diabetes is just diabetes caught early, and more easily managed if approached under the same vigour as any other diabetes.
Don't mean to upset anyone here, but I hate the idea that some (probably not those on here) bury their head in the sand a little.
Do not forget the diagnostic levels were set many years ago by committee they were kept deliberately high as at the time there were no medications such as metformin and the blood sugar lowering medications either by stting the bar for dianosis high they avoided the necessity to treat a large number of diabetics when the only thing they could offer was insulin. The levels have never been brought back in line with reality
I do not agree with the arbitrary distinction between pre and full diabetes. I though am having difficulty in impressing this on my daughter recently diagnosed with pre-diabetes who does not take it as seriously as I think she should.
Absolutely. At work there are 6 I know of Inc me. One t2 the rest pre.
Guess which one has done anything pro active AT ALL. Yep. Your lookin at him.
Even the t2 just takes his met. Job done. He is perfectly happy with double figure FBg. "need a bit to get you going" A direct quote.... Told me how good salted caramel ice cream was after a pizza last week.
Absolutely. At work there are 6 I know of Inc me. One t2 the rest pre.
Guess which one has done anything pro active AT ALL. Yep. Your lookin at him.
Even the t2 just takes his met. Job done. He is perfectly happy with double figure FBg. "need a bit to get you going" A direct quote.... Told me how good salted caramel ice cream was after a pizza last week.
Perhaps when they see how well you are doing they will be curious enough to ask.