• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

***?!?

Me too.
Give them the benefit of the doubt though guys. Maybe they're just a bit thick rather than malicious?
Either way they're keen to make sure their constituency gets bigger, not smaller.

fergus
 
I'm not sure that everyone who does not subscribe to what works for you deserves the label thick. By implication, anyone who utilises that recipe must be thick too. I admire your zeal in offering people a different way forward and, who knows, I might give it a try at some stage; but do not label me as thick for currently following a different(low GI) path.

Doug
 
Doug, I didn't label anyone as thick for following advice given by a supposed authority on diabetes. That ought to be perfectly reasonable.

If you read my post again, you'll see that I reserved that description for those ostensibly promoting the use of large amounts of refined flour as perfectly suitable for diabetics. Whatever way we choose to control our condition is for the individual to choose. But we should expect a whole lot more intelligence from those charged with offering the advice in the first place.

fergus
 
Osidge said:
I'm not sure that everyone who does not subscribe to what works for you deserves the label thick. By implication, anyone who utilises that recipe must be thick too.
Click to expand...
Hi Doug,

I think you have read something into Fergus' comment that was never intended. Nobody is deriding (or has even mentioned) your choice of a low GI diet, but if you have a look at the link that Patch posted you will see for yourself that the loaf is both high GI and extremely high in carbs, so is suitable for absolutely no-one with diabetes no matter what dietary regime they follow. There is absolutely no way that a recipe like this should ever be published by a body that is supposed to act responsibly towards diabetics.

And yes, some people will no doubt follow the recipe, not because they are thick but simply because they will believe that it must be good for them if it is published by a "responsible" body such as DUK.
 
I too agree totally with what Fergus and Dennis have said. I lo-carb/low GI and that particular recipe is a big NO for me.

Ken.
 
It's plausible a Type 1 could cover this with fast acting insulin. But apart from that <shudder> one slice is about half my daily carbs
 
All

I have not read anything into Fergus' posting that was not there. Whatever you all think of DUK, calling it thick, by implication, and I repeat, implication, makes thinking people who take its advice, in full knowledge of low-carbing and all that it espouses, thick also. If we are to support each other the use of intemperate language is neither appropriate nor helpful. As you know, we have the low-carbers, low-GIers, the chromiumers, the cinnamoners etc etc. Many ways to go that various people espouse. If it is good for them, that's OK by me. They might not go the way that I do but their actioins or their advice to others does not make them thick.

Incidentally, having tried the recipe today and eating some of it sensibly, I had neither an unusual spike nor an increase in my usual post-prandial blood sugar count. Perhaps I am lucky!

Doug
 
I would say,Osidge,having read the recipe ,that you are indeed one of the lucky ones.I certainly could not eat that without going into double figures.
 
I am lucky in many ways and not just having some of that recipe. I've gone about 13 years now with no complications, mainly on low GI (and sometimes making higher GI things low!). Having said that, I've just been diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease (following my Father and his Sister) so I guess it's swings and roundabouts. Still, it's given me a few more forums to join!!

Doug
 
Implication - interesting word ?

A while ago, I and a few friends discussed the logic behind implications. Since it was a bit confusing to us in the beginning, I’ll use this to try and explain.

Implications come in the form “x implies y”, “if x then y”, and “y if x.” Essentially, these statements mean “if x is true, then y must be true.” Here are some examples:

If you go to Cambridge, then you hate Oxford.
I will lose weight if I don’t eat dessert.
x=3 implies x+2=5.
A helpful way to view an implication is as a promise. For example, Statement 1 can be rewritten as “You are guaranteed to hate Oxford provided you go to Cambridge.”

Now, lets break it down.

Case 1. Lets say you do go to Cambridge (lucky you!). If you hate Oxford, then the promise holds and Statement 1 is true. If you don’t hate Oxford, then the promise is broken and Statement 1 is false.

Case 2. Now, you don’t go to Cambridge. Since you don’t go to Cambridge, you are not guaranteed to hate Oxford. But, you are also not guaranteed to love (not-hate) Oxford. So, regardless of whether you love or hate Oxford, the statement “If you go to Cambridge, then you hate Oxford” is true.

Remember that a false statement implies anything.

I think I got that right ? I don't mean to imply anything by the way.
 
Interesting..... :roll: :roll: Think I will now go and lie down in darkened room for half an hour or so........... :? :? :?
 
Cheese, apple and walnut bread30 August 2006

As good in packed lunches as it is with soups!
Click to expand...

Just wondering what else they would put in the packed lunch, slice of chocolate gateau :?:
 


Why Graham, what on earth are you implying ??? :?
 
Well Cugila, I'm pleased that my comments have brought so much humour. That's me told.
 
You may not agree with Diabetes U.K. diet advice but has anyone on here who keeps moaning about them looked at their research projects? They have recently started a three year study to see if low carb diets can sustain weight loss for Type 2's in conjunction with Exeter Hospital. There are many other studies that they are involved in so they are not all bad. Go to their website and you can see all of the studies and what they are costing.
As for the controversial loaf, I made it and ate a slice of it with a chicken salad and it was delicious. Blood sugars prior to eating, 5.2. after 1hr. 6.5 after 2hrs. 5.3 and for good measure, after 3hrs. 5.1. If you are going to eat it on it's own then most people would see a rise in their blood sugar. All foods need to be combined.
I keep reading that we are all different but when I read the comments on threads like this I wonder if some people accept that we are.
I would never tell people not to eat something as they can only tell if it is right or wrong for them by testing. Obviously if you don't have a meter and test strips this is difficult. Perhaps if you have a birthday coming up you could ask for money to pay for this vital equipment as it is the only way to get your diabetes under control . Either that or follow some of the advice on here for getting these prescribed.

Vicky.
 
butterfly said:
Go to their website and you can see all of the studies and what they are costing.
Click to expand...

Dear Vicky, because we are all different, you have the option of following their dietry advice and its potential cost. Your choice at the end of the day

Dave P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…