desidiabulum
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 706
‘We are all different’ tends to be invoked rather often in forum threads, but people often use it to mean very different things. I have noticed the following different senses:
1. We have different types of diabetes, or were diagnosed at different times, or are at different stages of the condition’s development.
2. Our individual systems respond in slightly different ways to different foods (i.e. some foods spike our BGs whereas others seem to take them without ill effects)
3. We have different lifestyles/jobs, which means that certain types of diet or medication are more feasible for some of us than for others.
4. We have different combinations of medical conditions which means that certain forms of diet/exercise/medication may not be as appropriate/possible for some of us as they are for others.
5. We reserve the right to make our own individual response to how we balance out the risks of diabetic complications and possible side-effects of medication, with how we like to eat and live, and how far we are prepared to change and disrupt our diet.
It would be useful if people would clarify which of these (or other) meanings they intend when they say ‘we are all different’ in a discussion. I do not personally see why these reservations should nullify general remarks and advice about preferable forms of diet, exercise or medication.
I do not systematically low-carb (reasons 3 and 5), I take sulfonylureas (reasons 3 and 5), I take statins and other heart medication (reason 4). I am most definitely different in my diabetes type (reason 1). I do not see this as any reason to question/argue with/resent people making the case for LCHF, or people making observations about types of food that GENERALLY raise blood sugars, or people commenting that a particular diet is NORMALLY unsustainable for people who want stable blood sugars, or people saying that it is better to control diabetes by diet and exercise alone if possible. These points make perfect sense to me: can’t we just take the ‘we are all different’ points 1-5 as read, rather than implying that they invalidate the other comments? Surely we can reserve the right not to accept advice (for perfectly good reasons) without taking it as a personal affront that it has been offered?
1. We have different types of diabetes, or were diagnosed at different times, or are at different stages of the condition’s development.
2. Our individual systems respond in slightly different ways to different foods (i.e. some foods spike our BGs whereas others seem to take them without ill effects)
3. We have different lifestyles/jobs, which means that certain types of diet or medication are more feasible for some of us than for others.
4. We have different combinations of medical conditions which means that certain forms of diet/exercise/medication may not be as appropriate/possible for some of us as they are for others.
5. We reserve the right to make our own individual response to how we balance out the risks of diabetic complications and possible side-effects of medication, with how we like to eat and live, and how far we are prepared to change and disrupt our diet.
It would be useful if people would clarify which of these (or other) meanings they intend when they say ‘we are all different’ in a discussion. I do not personally see why these reservations should nullify general remarks and advice about preferable forms of diet, exercise or medication.
I do not systematically low-carb (reasons 3 and 5), I take sulfonylureas (reasons 3 and 5), I take statins and other heart medication (reason 4). I am most definitely different in my diabetes type (reason 1). I do not see this as any reason to question/argue with/resent people making the case for LCHF, or people making observations about types of food that GENERALLY raise blood sugars, or people commenting that a particular diet is NORMALLY unsustainable for people who want stable blood sugars, or people saying that it is better to control diabetes by diet and exercise alone if possible. These points make perfect sense to me: can’t we just take the ‘we are all different’ points 1-5 as read, rather than implying that they invalidate the other comments? Surely we can reserve the right not to accept advice (for perfectly good reasons) without taking it as a personal affront that it has been offered?
-- I just think that, used too loosely, 'we are all different' is actually an impediment to clarity and precision of thought and discussion, and sometimes closes down debate in an unhelpful way. Or perhaps that's just me.
