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

Are we talking diets or religion? ( or maybe its all about fear?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter badcat
  • Start Date Start Date
Guzzler said:
I read a really interesting, quite long thread yesterday posted by a lass advocating a WFPB lifestyle. Although I am new to diabetes the one reason I couldn't agree with the lass was that the evidence based sources were unforthcoming. There were a number of members in the conversation and some of the more experienced and well informed people were politely asking for more information. Only one or two members resorted to ad hominem comments, which was sad but I know they were frustrated with the information, or the lack of it that the poster was giving. But I enjoyed reading the debate and will look for more of the same because some people come at a problem from a different angle and open up possibilities that may have been lurking in the shadows, possibilities that may just help someone on their journey.
Was it Einstein who said that the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result? I say, if it ain't broken don't fix it.
Click to expand...
As one who joined that debate, I must plead guilty. I hate it when people make off the cuff assertions that are not backed up by any form of evidence, but they also tend to heap praise on their favourite guru's. This produces a whiff of zealot to the thread which I try to counter with evidence from other independant sources, In the particular thread in question, I did actually end up changing my mind on the topic, and ended up agreeing on the principles they held. From my point of view, I had been able to do research and share it with the others in the thread, so the info is out there for people to make up their own mind, and posssibly do their own research. This is what I think a discussion should try to achieve. The winners are those who use the info to improve their situation whichever way they choose to go.
 
One issue I have is how things are often quite reductionist and in that way can become very narrow and prescriptive
As Previously stated, I have experimented with various approaches using the one that produces the best impacts on bs at the time and adjusting as necessary. Higher carb, vegan, low carb etc have all been useful at different times
I have followed low carb for some years and see lowering of carbs as an essential part of self management for most pre diabetics / type 2's ( I dont have type 1 so cannot meaningfully give an opinion there) but very much see low carb as an approach for individuals to find the level of carbs that works best for their individual body ( using feedback from self testing)
I get concerned when I see the general approach of " low carb" becoming translated into " low carb high fat" - they are different and lchf is less likely to work unproblematically for everyone. Some people do extremely well on lchf, but others have found weight gain and increasing BS following the same protocol, same with ketogenic diets. In my case at this point in time, high fat leaves me feeling quite ill so I use low carb (under 30g), caloric restriction, and intermittant fasting which is not something I would tell anyone else to do, but find it meets my body's needs
My advice for anyone looking for a dietary regime, would be to be open minded and see the question as a puzzle to be solved
1) If you see an approach that makes sense to you, try it but never blindly think its "the cure". Test test test the impact its having on your sugars and if it aint working, try something different
2) Never assume that what works for you is going to work for every/anyone else or that what works for others will automatically work for you.
3) Dont assume that what works for you now will work for you forever - it might or it might not - you need to periodically return to testing to know
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oldvatr said:
As one who joined that debate, I must plead guilty. I hate it when people make off the cuff assertions that are not backed up by any form of evidence, but they also tend to heap praise on their favourite guru's. This produces a whiff of zealot to the thread which I try to counter with evidence from other independant sources, In the particular thread in question, I did actually end up changing my mind on the topic, and ended up agreeing on the principles they held. From my point of view, I had been able to do research and share it with the others in the thread, so the info is out there for people to make up their own mind, and posssibly do their own research. This is what I think a discussion should try to achieve. The winners are those who use the info to improve their situation whichever way they choose to go.
Click to expand...
@Oldvatr
I thought you made some interesting points and at no point did you become rude. The lass kept putting links to youtube videos but on inspection the videos themselves did not have evidence based information, they were opinions based on case studies that were at best anecdotal. I am not a gullible woman, to be convinced I need hard evidence/proof that the biology and the approach results in a better outcome. Sadly the lass failed to convince me but I'm open minded enough to keep listening to differing opinions.
 
@Guzzler Is "the lass" a regional term of indearment? Serious question. @AliB is a fully grown, intelligent woman, but to my ear, calling her lass sounds like she is a little girl. Must be a local thing :)
 
badcat said:
Dont assume that what works for you now will work for you forever - it might or it might not - you need to periodically return to testing to know
Click to expand...

That is a very important point, and it breaks my heart to see people reaching their BS target and stopping testing, or just the odd random test once a week, because they know which foods they can or can't eat. This is complacency and all too often we see cries for help because their numbers are going up. Our bodies change, our tolerances change, our insulin production may change. Changes in diet and regime need to change.

Sorry, this is a bit off topic.
 
Avocado Sevenfold said:
@Guzzler Is "the lass" a regional term of indearment? Serious question. @AliB is a fully grown, intelligent woman, but to my ear, calling her lass sounds like she is a little girl. Must be a local thing :)
Click to expand...
It is not unusal to see toilet facilities marked as Lads and Lasses, or regionally Laddies and Lassies.It confuses the heck out of tourists. Nowadays I think it has been modernised to Lads and Ladettes, or just His and Hers.
 
Not relevant to main subject, but the international symbols used in Natural History for male and female are totally unambiguous, unlike the male and female gender symbols used in the UK now that we live in a gender merging country! :)
 
Last edited:
Avocado Sevenfold said:
@Guzzler Is "the lass" a regional term of indearment? Serious question. @AliB is a fully grown, intelligent woman, but to my ear, calling her lass sounds like she is a little girl. Must be a local thing :)
Click to expand...

'Lass' is a regional term referring to any female. Not necessarily young. My ex manager referred to me as 'lass' and I'm over 60 and she definitely didn't mean it as a term of endearment.
 
Avocado Sevenfold said:
@Guzzler Is "the lass" a regional term of indearment? Serious question. @AliB is a fully grown, intelligent woman, but to my ear, calling her lass sounds like she is a little girl. Must be a local thing :)
Click to expand...
@Avocado Sevenfold

Lass is a description for a female of any age usually as a freindly term but sometimes 'Our Lass' means the wife. Used in the north esp northern England and in Scotland. Lad has the same kind of thing but is becoming a term mostly used for male children or young men, though I have been known to still call males of any age 'Lad'.
 
I'm trying to remember the origin of the quote, "Nothing make sense except in the light of evolution" or words to that effect.

Or paraphrased by Troy Stapleton below:

DGUYLWlV0AArfuj.jpg:large



I try to look at all dietary advice through that lens. It's always seemed like a pretty good BS meter to me ;)

For example: "eggs will kill you", "red meat will kill you", "saturated fat will kill you", etc.
 
Oldvatr said:
Yesterday there was a BBC report that a hospital in Bristol is using LCHF diet to successfully treat epilepsy in children. So the NHS can change, even if it is 200 years later (Yes they Bant now)
Click to expand...
That's not such a new thing and has been in the NHS Lexicon for quite some time. There's a great deal more documentation of treating epilepsy this way than Diabetes!
 
tim2000s said:
That's not such a new thing and has been in the NHS Lexicon for quite some time. There's a great deal more documentation of treating epilepsy this way than Diabetes!
Click to expand...
LC diets are also being used for treating some cancers. and this works where the tumour needs to be starved of glucocose
 
tim2000s said:
That's not such a new thing and has been in the NHS Lexicon for quite some time. There's a great deal more documentation of treating epilepsy this way than Diabetes!
Click to expand...
No sure about that Tim.. the low carb programme on this site has what 240,000 anecdotes?
 
There are a few salient points here, esp what works for you today may not work for you tomorrow. It would be wise not to get bogged down to the point where one's pride stopped a venture into a slightly different approach. The phrase 'Don't knock it 'til you've tried it' comes to mind, unless it is just silly as in a lifetime of living off Pringles and Doritos.
 
Back
Top