- Messages
- 163
- Type of diabetes
- Gestational
- Treatment type
- Diet only
- Dislikes
- Diabetes, ofsted inspectors, uninvited phonecalls
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2015/jul/skipping-breakfast-with-type-2-diabetes-could-cause-dangerous-spikes-in-blood-glucose-levels-93716047.html?utm_source=Communicator&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Untitled20&utm_campaign=Should+I+eat+breakfast?&utm_dispatch ID=3447174&utm_email name=DCUK+-+4/8+-+T2
This article featured in one of the diabetes uk e-mails that I received today. Looks plausible enough, even if accompanied by a picture of the sort of high carb breakfasts I've had to give up on. Then I read the summary of the paper. Mrs P nearly called the ambulance as my blood pressure rose (note - hyperbole!).
The key bits.
The study involved 22 participants, each of whom had type 2 diabetes. The average age of the study group was 56.9 years old. Every participant ate the same diet for two days, which consisted of a balanced meal of milk, tuna, bread, and a chocolate bar. On the second day, however, the participants did not eat breakfast.
"We theorised that the omission of breakfast would not be healthy, but it was surprising to see such a high degree of deterioration of glucose metabolism only because the participants did not eat breakfast.
"For type 2 diabetic individuals, the omission of breakfast is associated with a significant increase in all-day blood sugar spikes and of HbA1c, which represents average blood glucose levels over the preceding three months."
The researchers observed huge blood glucose peaks of 14.9 following lunch, and 16.6 after dinner. After an identical lunch and dinner with breakfast on the first day, the participants peaked at 10.7 after lunch, and 11.9 after dinner.
The study argues that including breakfast as part of your daily diet is more important than the specific foods you eat. Following a low-carb diet - or any other diet for that matter - will apparently have little effect on blood glucose levels if breakfast is skipped.
The study had a small sample size.
Why was the duration of the experiment so short?
How can they call meals with no vegetables balanced meals?
Why are they feeding diabetics bread and chocolate?
Why did they only do the test over two days?
Are blood peaks of 10.7 and 11.9 good? (only compared to 14.9 and 16.6)
Did they test the skipping of breakfast on a low carb diet?
How can they draw conclusions about the benefits or otherwise of a low carb diet if they only test their victims on a high carb low micronutrient diet that may diabetics would consider unsuitable? If I ate this diet, I would expect to get ill.
Why is Diabetes UK publicising this unscientific stuff that would score low marks in a GCSE science exam, let alone a university assignment?
The strapline should be "You get spikes if you eat bread and chocolate - but you get even bigger spikes if you skip breakfast"
This article featured in one of the diabetes uk e-mails that I received today. Looks plausible enough, even if accompanied by a picture of the sort of high carb breakfasts I've had to give up on. Then I read the summary of the paper. Mrs P nearly called the ambulance as my blood pressure rose (note - hyperbole!).
The key bits.
The study involved 22 participants, each of whom had type 2 diabetes. The average age of the study group was 56.9 years old. Every participant ate the same diet for two days, which consisted of a balanced meal of milk, tuna, bread, and a chocolate bar. On the second day, however, the participants did not eat breakfast.
"We theorised that the omission of breakfast would not be healthy, but it was surprising to see such a high degree of deterioration of glucose metabolism only because the participants did not eat breakfast.
"For type 2 diabetic individuals, the omission of breakfast is associated with a significant increase in all-day blood sugar spikes and of HbA1c, which represents average blood glucose levels over the preceding three months."
The researchers observed huge blood glucose peaks of 14.9 following lunch, and 16.6 after dinner. After an identical lunch and dinner with breakfast on the first day, the participants peaked at 10.7 after lunch, and 11.9 after dinner.
The study argues that including breakfast as part of your daily diet is more important than the specific foods you eat. Following a low-carb diet - or any other diet for that matter - will apparently have little effect on blood glucose levels if breakfast is skipped.
The study had a small sample size.
Why was the duration of the experiment so short?
How can they call meals with no vegetables balanced meals?
Why are they feeding diabetics bread and chocolate?
Why did they only do the test over two days?
Are blood peaks of 10.7 and 11.9 good? (only compared to 14.9 and 16.6)
Did they test the skipping of breakfast on a low carb diet?
How can they draw conclusions about the benefits or otherwise of a low carb diet if they only test their victims on a high carb low micronutrient diet that may diabetics would consider unsuitable? If I ate this diet, I would expect to get ill.
Why is Diabetes UK publicising this unscientific stuff that would score low marks in a GCSE science exam, let alone a university assignment?
The strapline should be "You get spikes if you eat bread and chocolate - but you get even bigger spikes if you skip breakfast"
