Sounds to me like you aren't eating enough healthy wholegrains. Unless you are very careful you're going to end up catching the diabetes, or something.CarbsRok said:Lol slight problem I hate pasta,rice and bread doesn't agree with me. non to keen on cake either.
borofergie said:Sounds to me like you aren't eating enough healthy wholegrains. Unless you are very careful you're going to end up catching the diabetes, or something.CarbsRok said:Lol slight problem I hate pasta,rice and bread doesn't agree with me. non to keen on cake either.
The DUK position is exactly the same as the ADA as far as I can see.Sid Bonkers said:The Times said:The American Diabetes Association changed its advice on low-carb diets in 2008. It now considers them to be an effective treatment for short-term weight loss among obese people suffering from type 2 diabetes.
Kelly D. Brownell is an American scientist, professor, and internationally renowned expert on obesity. Brownell is Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale, where he is also Professor of Psychology and Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health. His research deals primarily with obesity and the intersection of behavior, environment, and health with public policy. He was named in 2006 as one of "The World's 100 Most Influential People" by Time magazine.
It is an important time to reflect on the ways that the public and global health communities can engage with the food industry. There are divergent views [1]. Many political bodies, foundations, and scientists believe that working collaboratively with the food industry is the path for change. The assumption is that this industry is somehow different than others, and that because people must eat, the industry is here to stay, and like it or not, working with them is the only solution.
Based on my 30 years of experience in the public health and policy sectors, I believe this position is a trap. When the history of the world's attempt to address obesity is written, the greatest failure may be collaboration with and appeasement of the food industry. I expect history will look back with dismay on the celebration of baby steps industry takes (such as public–private partnerships with health organizations, “healthy eating” campaigns, and corporate social responsibility initiatives) while it fights viciously against meaningful change (such as limits on marketing, taxes on products such as sugared beverages, and regulation of nutritional labeling).
The obesity problem has industry's attention, and they are doing things. The question is whether these things are meaningful or are the predictable behavior of an industry under threat and are designed to stop rather than support public health efforts. The soft drink industry gave the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia a US$10 million gift—at a critical time the city of Philadelphia was considering a soda tax. Such public-sector interaction with industry could be predicted to undermine public health goals and protect industry interests [2]–[6].
The food industry has had plenty of time to prove itself trustworthy. It has been in high gear, making promises to behave better, but their minor progress creates an impression of change while larger attempts to subvert the agenda carry on. Witness the massive resistance against soda taxes in the United States [7] and the wholesale attack of marketing standards proposed by the Interagency Working Group (e.g., [8]). Worst perhaps is the issue of marketing food to children. The industry launched the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative designed to “…shift the mix of foods advertised to children under 12 to encourage healthier dietary choices and healthy lifestyles” [9]. Objective reports, however, have shown a tidal wave of marketing of calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods to children, and if any change is occurring, marketing is on the increase [10]–[13].
Companies boast of introducing healthier options, and at least one report cites this as evidence that market forces (e.g., consumer demand for better foods) will be the best motivator for companies to change [14]. But introducing healthier processed foods does not mean unhealthy foods will be supplanted, and might simply represent the addition of more calories to the food supply. Furthermore, the companies have not promised to sell less junk food. Quite the contrary; they now offer ever larger burgers and portions, introduce ever more categories of sugared beverages (sports drinks, energy drinks, and vitamin waters), find ever more creative ways of marketing foods to vulnerable populations (e.g., children), and increasingly engage in promotion of unhealthy foods in developing countries [1],[15],[16].
The food industry, like all industries, plays by certain rules—it must defend its core practices against all threats, produce short-term earnings, and in do doing, sell more food [2],[17]. If it distorts science, creates front groups to do its bidding, compromises scientists, professional organizations, and community groups with contributions, blocks needed public health policies in the service of their goals, or engages in other tactics in “the corporate playbook” [3],[18], this is what is takes to protect business as usual.
The parallel scenario most often used to justify collaboration with industry is tobacco. Often heard is that “people don't have to smoke, but they must eat” and that “the tobacco industry was simple—just a few companies and one product—but food is much more complex” [3]. Tobacco is an interesting parallel [3],[19], but is by no means the only one. A world economic crisis was fueled in part by too little oversight of financial institutions, but we all need banks. Requiring air bags in cars was stalled for years by the auto industry, but we need cars.
An emerging area in need of scrutiny is the food industry's attempts to create foods engineered in ways that thwart the human body's ability to regulate calorie intake and weight. Whether overconsumption is a consequence simply of hyperpalatability brought about by extreme processing [15] and/or an addictive process [20],[21], overconsumption is a predictable consequence of the current food environment. The arresting reality is that companies must sell less food if the population is to lose weight, and this pits the fundamental purpose of the food industry against public health goals.
We need food, but the obesity crisis is made worse by the way industry formulates and markets its products. The food industry, like other industries must be regulated to prevent excesses and to protect the public good. Left to regulate itself, industry has the opportunity, if not the mandate from shareholders, to sell more products irrespective of their impact on consumers. Government, foundations, and other powerful institutions should be working for regulation, not collaboration.
If history is to look back positively on current times, the future must bring several things. Respectful dialogue with industry is desirable, and to the extent industry will make voluntary changes that inch us forward, the public good will be served. But there must be recognition that this will bring small victories only and that to take the obesity problem seriously will require courage, leaders who will not back down in the face of harsh industry tactics, and regulation with purpose.
Etty said:The DUK position is exactly the same as the ADA as far as I can see.Sid Bonkers said:The Times said:The American Diabetes Association changed its advice on low-carb diets in 2008. It now considers them to be an effective treatment for short-term weight loss among obese people suffering from type 2 diabetes.
For weight loss, either low-carbohydrate, low-fat calorie-restricted, or Mediterranean diets may be effective in the short term (up to 2 years).
130g is the minimum, not really their RDA. If you look at their book "What Do I Eat Now" , step-by-step guidance for T2's, the Introduction says of their example meals in each chapter, that you have a choice of 2 meals. The first meal is 45-60g cho per meal, the second is 60-75g per meal, plus snacks. That would give a range of 135g + snacks, to 225g + snacks per day. Then they say to choose the option that best suits your individual needs!xyzzy said:[
Although I agree a move to 130g / day isn't enough for quite a few of us it is however a move to half what is still recommended in the UK and is therefore progress in my mind. The 130g / day RDA recommendation seems to have no time limit proviso as far as I can see and neither does the "Making Healthy Food Choices" pages of their web site which is essentially stating the same thing in my opinion.
Etty said:130g is the minimum, not really their RDA. If you look at their book "What Do I Eat Now" , step-by-step guidance for T2's, the Introduction says of their example meals in each chapter, that you have a choice of 2 meals. The first meal is 45-60g cho per meal, the second is 60-75g per meal, plus snacks. That would give a range of 135g + snacks, to 225g + snacks per day. Then they say to choose the option that best suits your individual needs!xyzzy said:[
Although I agree a move to 130g / day isn't enough for quite a few of us it is however a move to half what is still recommended in the UK and is therefore progress in my mind. The 130g / day RDA recommendation seems to have no time limit proviso as far as I can see and neither does the "Making Healthy Food Choices" pages of their web site which is essentially stating the same thing in my opinion.
It should be noted that the RDA for digestible carbohydrate is 130 g/day and is based on providing adequate glucose as the required fuel for the central nervous system without reliance on glucose production from ingested protein or fat.
chris lowe said:When I was at school in a galaxy far far away (a long long time ago) I had what was then called domestic science lessons which covered a whole host of matters - I still can't iron a shirt and leave a crease in the sleeve - including cooking. I was also lucky that I had a mum who liked cooking (despite the fact dad was a meat and two veg, none of that foreign muck kind of man) so she also taught me to cook, which I passed on to my son so I guess a lot depends not only on what is taught at school and what sort of parents you have. I'm sure there are some parents whose idea of a cooking lesson is how long to put the KFC in the microwave to re heat it.
We now have so many reports, studies etc that say low carbing is good for diabetics, so there must be a reason why so called experts in the UK insist on burying their heads in the sand. :thumbdown:
It's confusing isn't it? I think they are both being vague. The ADA 130g RDA seems extraordinary to me, and if they mean it, why isn't it in the executive summary, why are they not producing menus and recipes with carbs in line with the RDA, and why are we not hearing more about it from other sources? I can see where the 130g comes from, but I don't see why they are calling it RDA.xyzzy said:Well their official statement does not say minimum (my underline). I don't however see that as the major factor in all of this. To me it's the fact they acknowledge you can do 130g quite safely or an effective 25% diet i.e they validate low carb as safe and acceptable. DUK's position that "you can do low carb for a year" as a diet is no where near as strong a statement in my opinion. At what g / day or % are DUK recommending? It's one thing stating "low carb for a year" but another to tell people in the UK an actual dietary value. Obviously an extreme example but without that clarity then 49% could be claimed as low carb in the UK.
Etty said:It's confusing isn't it? I think they are both being vague. The ADA 130g RDA seems extraordinary to me ...
I just did, Thanks.MaryJ said:I urge everyone to write to their MP's quoting there own experience, without too much detail and copy and paste this thread as a link on the email.
My MP has already been made aware of this website and has promised to investigate further the ppor advice being given out.
It's all looking very promising indeed.
Mary x
PS many thanks libralising and desidiabulum for posting it.
Etty said:It's confusing isn't it? I think they are both being vague. The ADA 130g RDA seems extraordinary to me, and if they mean it, why isn't it in the executive summary, why are they not producing menus and recipes with carbs in line with the RDA, and why are we not hearing more about it from other sources? I can see where the 130g comes from, but I don't see why they are calling it RDA.
RoyG said:That is, a T1 looks at the amount of carbs they are going to eat and injects an amount of insulin accordingly.
A T2 (diet) looks at the amount of effective insulin available (fixed) and takes an amount of carbs accordingly.
jopar said:RoyG said:That is, a T1 looks at the amount of carbs they are going to eat and injects an amount of insulin accordingly.
A T2 (diet) looks at the amount of effective insulin available (fixed) and takes an amount of carbs accordingly.
Sorry but this is wrong..
Firstly, For T1's to work out your correct dose of insulin is a lot more complicated than just inject for carbs you eat!
It goes something like this,
Firstly you test to see what your BG is..
Then you work if and how much active insulin you've got on board, from previous bolus or correction injection
Then you workout any adjustment factors, which are
Exercise already done
Exercise you'll going to be doing
Stress (are you or are you going into a stressful situation etc)
Then ambient temperature
Once you've worked out this and what adjustments you need to make, you then
Count your carbs, to get insulin figure then decreased/increase the dose by your workings out above...
Secondly I would point out, that for T2's insulin isn't 'Fixed' it fluctuates, and it's generally insulin resistance and/or the body's ability to utilize the insulin produced effectively... For some it will be the response time/lag of producing the insulin causing problems..
Jopar,jopar said:RoyG said:That is, a T1 looks at the amount of carbs they are going to eat and injects an amount of insulin accordingly.
A T2 (diet) looks at the amount of effective insulin available (fixed) and takes an amount of carbs accordingly.
Sorry but this is wrong..
Firstly, For T1's to work out your correct dose of insulin is a lot more complicated than just inject for carbs you eat!
It goes something like this,
Firstly you test to see what your BG is..
Then you work if and how much active insulin you've got on board, from previous bolus or correction injection
Then you workout any adjustment factors, which are
Exercise already done
Exercise you'll going to be doing
Stress (are you or are you going into a stressful situation etc)
Then ambient temperature
Once you've worked out this and what adjustments you need to make, you then
Count your carbs, to get insulin figure then decreased/increase the dose by your workings out above...
Secondly I would point out, that for T2's insulin isn't 'Fixed' it fluctuates, and it's generally insulin resistance and/or the body's ability to utilize the insulin produced effectively... For some it will be the response time/lag of producing the insulin causing problems..
(A is the top grade of evidence)I ndividuals using rapid-acting insulin by injection or an insulin pump should adjust the meal and snack insulin doses based on the carbohydrate content of the meals and snacks. (A)
The first nutrition priority for individuals requiring insulin therapy is to integrate an insulin regimen into their lifestyle. With the many insulin options now available, an appropriate insulin regimen can usually be developed to conform to an individual’s preferred meal routine, food choices, and physical activity pattern. For individuals receiving basal-bolus insulin therapy, the total carbohydrate content of meals and snacks is the major determinant of bolus insulin doses (84). Insulin-to-carbohydrate ratios can be used to adjust mealtime insulin doses. Several methods can be used to estimate the nutrient content of meals, including carbohydrate counting, the exchange system, and experience-based estimation. The DAFNE (Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating) study (85) demonstrated that patients can learn how to use glucose testing to better match insulin to carbohydrate intake. Improvement in A1C without a significant increase in severe hypoglycemia was demonstrated, as were positive effects on quality of life, satisfaction with treatment, and psychological well-being, even though increases in the number of insulin injections and blood glucose tests were necessary.
RoyG said:Firstly I thought it apt as a simple level of explanation to an MP, I really did not want to get into the finer scientific points of how a Type 1 diabetic works out their dosage, or Type 2 checks how many carbs are in what foods, and I thought Borofergie explained it simply and quit well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?