I Don't Understand The Nhs

[Lord Midas]

For decades the science for low carb benefits has been available. Though the ones with the money and power (big food, big pharma) have constantly tried to suppress this. Resulting in the advice that a carb heavy diet is healthy and will reduce the risk of heart attacks, etc

But today more and more articles, and people talking, about low carb and the ketogenic diet are coming to the fore. The evidence is there, and easy to find.

But my biggest concern is why haven't the NHS said anything about this. Why have they not stopped in their tracks and said "you know, we might have gotten this wrong. and there does appear to be a correlation between the nutritional advice we've been giving and the steady rise in obesity and type 2 diabetes. let's get to the bottom of this and change everything".

But no. To this very day, we're still told to eat a large quantity of carbohydrates because they are 'heart healthy'. Why are they sticking their heads in the sand?

Big food and big pharma. That's why. It's a disgrace. We've allegedly got the best health service in the world yet the very advice they provide on nutrition is the very thing that will kill us (or at least make us all live lives that depend on medication).

:Angry Face:

Post edited by Mod

 

[zand]

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[donnellysdogs]

Me too....agree wholeheartedly as well.

 

[annscullamus]

Me too, it is a shocking state of affairs, they are 30 years behind.

 

[satindoll]

Whilst I agree .........I can see the reason behind their reluctance to do it........not because Big Pharma and their cohorts will cause agro but.........in todays "Blame Game" society and its "Lets sue the pants off them" mentality the resulting court cases would bankrupt the country in no time........and even though we here may only want to spread the good word and wouldn't dream of punishing those in charge for being slow on the uptake, you can bet there would be a few who would look at the revelation and see pound signs, then regardless of the fact that pursuing those signs would have the worst effect continue on their merry way to fill their pockets with our much needed funds.

 

[Guzzler]

I am in agreement, also. Even Swiss Re know this but it was startling (to me, anyway) that there are 'experts' in the field who say that they are unconvinced that changes to the guidelines are needed, except now for the question of sugar (even the staunchest detractors have been led kicking and screaming to agreement that levels of added sugar must be reduced).

We must not be tempted to level all accusations at the NHS even though they are the gatekeepers. Those of us who would like to see a world of open, honest advice that is not made muddy by conflict of interest may not see this in our lifetimes if at all but if it took half a century to bring us to this point (with the epidemic of obesity, T2 and PreD, etc) then it should, by rights, take as long to fix. Somehow I'm not optimistic about the timescale.

 

[KK123]

Even if they stubbornly insist on sticking to the 'benefits' of the eatwell plate, it would help a little if they at least recognised that a low carb approach can be beneficial, why can't they stick it on the NHS site or guidelines as another approach that has proven outcomes? That would surely be a start, I can sort of see why they still go for the 'balanced diet' as that is a catch all diet not great for everyone or even anyone but maybe ok'ish for many, whereas exchanging it for a low carb one (as the primary, best all round one) they might be worried about repercussions.

 

[Alexandra100]

why haven't the NHS said anything about this

Isn't the NHS guided by the WHO?

 

[Guzzler]

One of the stumbling blocks. Gary Taubes (58 seconds).

 

[Lord Midas]

Oh wow. I wasn't aware of this new documentary. This will be essential viewing.

Gary Taubes books "Good Calories, Bad Calories" , "The Case Against Sugar" and "Why We Get Fat" are excellent and essential reading.

Good Calories.... will drive you mad at how these so call scientists got away with creating the nutritional guidelines that have put us in this position today. An amazing read.

One of the stumbling blocks. Gary Taubes (58 seconds).

 

[ickihun]

Because..... they would be open to be sued and then 'the diabetics would bankrupt the nhs'.

My dieticians accept low carb eating and normal fat but not excessiveness. They now note more than advise after my heavy weight loss on insulin.
Its common knowledge too many nuts or grams of cheese prevent weight loss.

 

[Honeyend]

The big stumbling block is, evidence based.
In the old days, any consultant could have a pet theory and his patients were treated that way, he could order equipment, tests and give drugs to patients without anyone questioning his(usually his) choices. There were huge variations in how you were treated.
A lot of the practices that are the remnants of this time have never been as rigorously tested as any new treatment we want to use now. The NHS wanted to standardise treatment so everyone one got the best treatment, which was shown to be the most effective, based on evidence. So they used the evidence that was available, so there is an evidence lag.
Now if you were doing a drugs trial where the treatment was so much better than the control, it would have to be stopped because there would be ethical issues about not giving people treatment that was seen to be effective. I do not know if we are coming to that tipping point. There are GP practices have evidence of the effectiveness of low carb for Type 2 diabetes in the real world, its translating this into real evidence? The GP's that are doing this must be already having to put in hours of their own time to promote this. Perhaps we need a specific LowCarb charity to help support them get the evidence.

 

[ghost_whistler]

My local NHS will not treat people if they eat 'extreme' or 'fad' diets, and keto is one they consider as such. If you have problems you will simply be told to eat properly. They have posters up advertising the standard advive: eat less salt, no saturated fat etc.

 

[ghost_whistler]

Because..... they would be open to be sued and then 'the diabetics would bankrupt the nhs'.

My dieticians accept low carb eating and normal fat but not excessiveness. They now note more than advise after my heavy weight loss on insulin.
Its common knowledge too many nuts or grams of cheese prevent weight loss.

Is it, or are you reporting what they think?

Confused.

 

[rosco 2]

Good morning. As a retired nhs worker, my immediate response is “lack of evidence”. Evidence means immpeccable, controlled studies without any bias. The next issue is funding for studies where there is no likelihood of making money. So that’s big pharma out of the game. Big pharma puts in vast amounts of ££ /$$ for R&D with the eventual prospect of huge profits for years if the drug and findings are positive. Do a study which results in “you benefit if you dump carbs and sugar”??

The NHS is unable to promote strategies that are not evidence based. They must keep litigation in mind always as this is an area of societal chance and I have met more than a few people out to lie their **** off to make money. That includes patients, big pharma, politicians.

That’s why these forums are important.

 

[rosco 2]

In passing, my GP - who told me he is well versed in issues pertaining to diabetes- was in agreement I chose low carb diet. So he is clearly on board and has not bothered to refer me to diabetic nurse. Probably wise decision unless I request it. I am now waiting for my first HbA1c result post diagnosis. Fingers crossed...

 

[Guzzler]

In passing, my GP - who told me he is well versed in issues pertaining to diabetes- was in agreement I chose low carb diet. So he is clearly on board and has not bothered to refer me to diabetic nurse. Probably wise decision unless I request it. I am now waiting for my first HbA1c result post diagnosis. Fingers crossed...

The proof will be in the pudding. Good luck.

 

[MartinK9]

The proof will be in the pudding.

Or lack thereof

 

[bulkbiker]

Good morning. As a retired nhs worker, my immediate response is “lack of evidence”. Evidence means immpeccable, controlled studies without any bias. The next issue is funding for studies where there is no likelihood of making money. So that’s big pharma out of the game. Big pharma puts in vast amounts of ££ /$$ for R&D with the eventual prospect of huge profits for years if the drug and findings are positive. Do a study which results in “you benefit if you dump carbs and sugar”??

The NHS is unable to promote strategies that are not evidence based. They must keep litigation in mind always as this is an area of societal chance and I have met more than a few people out to lie their **** off to make money. That includes patients, big pharma, politicians.

That’s why these forums are important.

Interesting that they seem to be so wedded to the Eatwell Guide for which there seems to be little (any?) actual supporting evidence..

 

[Dark Horse]

There are some interesting links and replies given to people who have commented on this article from PHE entitled, 'Healthy eating advice must be based on the best evidence' :-
https://publichealthmatters.blog.go...ng-advice-must-be-based-on-the-best-evidence/