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

Advice from British Nutrition Foundation :-(

stuffedolive

Well-Known Member
Messages
543
Location
The Marches
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Daily Mail, you know the sort
This is what we (and Boris) are up against ...

"People with diabetes should try to maintain a healthy weight and eat a diet that is low in fat (particularly saturates) and salt but contains plenty of fruit and vegetables (at least five portions a day) and starchy carbohydrate foods such as bread, rice and pasta (particularly whole-grain versions)."

https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/health-conditions/diabetes.html

For BNF read 'the food industry' advising government :-(
 
Our old dog became diabetic in the last years of his 14 years. He became very thin, and we had to inject him with insulin before we gave him food. His favourite food (innocently we let him choose which dog kibble he liked - I know better now) was a company belonging to Mars! I can only imagine by products from Mars manufacturing were being turning into kibble. The vet said there is now a huge increase in diabetes in dogs.

It's obvious BIG FOOD are holding Gov depts over a barrel....
 

Very good advice I'd have said and funnily enough just the type of foods I've eaten for the last 36 years as a Type one

Edit, but they've missed out porridge oats
 

To some extent I can understand why they mention vegetables (not so much the fruit) but for the life of me why do they all say to eat plenty of 'bread/pasta/rice'? I've always thought of them as fillers or something to mop up the sauce, yes, they can taste nice (especially the bread!!) but should hardly be on a list that suggests you MUST eat them to stay healthy.
 
I think it must be to fill you up so that you don't eat the "evil" fat.
 
I have to agree with BoJo on this one. For a type 1 it works, probably not for a type 2. Really needs to not be putting diabetes in to 1 category
 
In Response said:
Or to fill you up because carbs are cheap.
There are still many people who have to watch their pennies and eat what they can afford.
Click to expand...

Hi there, that may be true of course as one green pepper can be twice the price of a bag of rice but I still don't get why such things are on a list that applies to everybody. If what you say is the case then that would suggest they are deliberately giving out dodgy advice to millions of people for the benefit of those at the poorer end of society, (who in actual fact are likely to be the ones to suffer most when things go wrong).
 
porl69 said:
I have to agree with BoJo on this one. For a type 1 it works, probably not for a type 2. Really needs to not be putting diabetes in to 1 category
Click to expand...

I do agree about the difference but I just wonder why they would think that rice/pasta/bread is worth going on the same list as fruit & veg (especially the veg) as if they were equally healthy for the general public and simply a must. Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not a carb hater (I love 'em) but I have always restricted them and wonder whether when people see them on this govt list, they think they should be having 5 of them a day also.
 

If you think, this is bad -- scroll to page 4 and comments on diet for T2D specifically.

"Dietary factors can contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes. The most significant factors are a diet high in energy, fat (especially saturates) and low in fibre. This kind of diet is harmful because it can cause weight gain and also impairs insulin action. It is not entirely clear whether these dietary factors have a direct effect independent of their effect on obesity. Evidence that saturated fat increases the risk of type 2 diabetes and that fibre is protective is more convincing than the evidence for several other nutrients which have been linked with type 2 diabetes. It is a common myth that sugar in the diet causes type 2 diabetes; research has shown that this is not the case."

 
Last edited:

Blimey!! Surely it's common sense that unless they have done these experiments on a fat ONLY diet, then any results are likely to be down to the carbs that are associated and eaten with those fats? How many people in the general population would eat butter (without bread), sour cream (without the jacket potato), cheese (without the cracker) etc. x
 
Reactions: JRT
Once you accept that most dietary guides are about corporate policy, and have nothing to do with public health, the need to ask questions evaporates.
 
Reactions: JRT
Several posts have been deleted from this thread for bickering, derailing and making derogatory remarks about those who are overweight.

Please stick to discussing the OP in a constructive and relevant fashion. Further posts which derail the thread will be deleted and may result in thread bans or other sanctions.
 

I was reading this and it reminded me of another article I read today from TIME:

"The study did not find any significant links between diabetes risk and consumption of red meat, processed meat, eggs or whole-fat milk. That was a surprise to the researchers, who suspect that other factors may have diluted these results. They point out that dietary patterns in Spain are different than those in the United States, and that many of the study participants were following a Mediterranean diet, so these findings may not apply to someone following a typical American diet.

“It’s safe to say, based on the findings of other studies, that processed meat and red meat are associated with cardiovascular disease and other chronic disease risks,” says Guasch-Ferre. “We know it’s beneficial to reduce the intake of these meats and to replace them with healthy fats from plant sources like nuts and olive oil.”

You heard them - its 'safe to say' fat and meat is bad, even if there is a lack of evidence
 
Mr_Pot said:
I think it must be to fill you up so that you don't eat the "evil" fat.
Click to expand...
The cynic in me says it's because they are all processed/manufactured/imported and therefore have BIGprofit margins
 
JenniferM55 said:
I can only imagine by products from Mars manufacturing were being turning into kibble.
Click to expand...

I worked for Mars Incorporated based in Slough from 1995 to 2000 and the Pet food division based in Melton Mobray was entirely separate. There aren't really any by products when making Mars bars. Even the Mars bars that get rejected (there are guidelines for the amount of ripples) go back into the chocolate within certain limits.

I don't know if they still do it and Slough doesn't really have any nice bits, but a tour round the Mars factory is fascinating and well worth a couple of hours of your time if ever near Slough. I can guarantee that it will put you off chocolate for life, even the smell makes me feel sick these days.
 
kev-w said:
Very good advice I'd have said and funnily enough just the type of foods I've eaten for the last 36 years as a Type one

Edit, but they've missed out porridge oats
Click to expand...
I suppose people dislike the fact that it says 'people with diabetes', and not 'people with type 1 diabetes only'. It's rather like saying 'people with diabetes don't need artificial insulin; they can control their condition with diet and lifestyle changes'- that's very good advice for most, but extremely bad advice for others.
 
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.…