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

cholesterol and diabetes

jopar said:
If a book is expressing a controversial view point, the author usually uses a 'sales pitch' style of writing mainly because they've got to 'sale' the idea to the reader!
:shock:

What?
Martin Luther's 95 Theses?
Isaac Newton's Principa?
Karl Marx's Das Kapital?
Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations?
Charles Darwin's Origin of Species?
Gary Taubes' Why We Get Fat?

All of these people express controversial "feories". Would you happily dismiss all of them with the same brush?

Most of the classic texts in our culture expressed controversial points of view. That's why they're classic texts. I wouldn't describe any of them as having a "sales pitch". Great ideas sell themselves. Trust me, I write propaganda for a living.

You can't arbritarily dismiss books just because you disagree with the author or just because "they are books and therefore financially motivated" (especially when you haven't bothered to read the book in question).
 
borofergie said:
Education is very rarely a bad thing. You just need to make sure that you read books from people expressing a variety of views. The word that is used to describe someone that doesn't read any books is "ignorant".


Stephen I do have A-levels and went to University in my twenties to study so your preaching to the converted when it comes to education! :)

The books I choose to read are probably somewhat different to your own going by what you write on the forum but it's reading nonetheless, I would never ever call someone who doesn't read books ''ignorant'' as there could be number of reasons why they don't read, an educated man wouldn't use such language IMHO.
 
As I dis-spell both theories, I eat complex carbs and I also eat saturated fats, (I don't follow a reduced fat diet) yet my cholesterol levels are good, so can only assume that there's something else going on apart from just the food we chose to eat!
Pumping with Accu-chek Spirit pump since June '08
jopar

I thought you are on insulin? And a pre-menopausal woman? So you can eat complex carbs and cover them with insulin, thus keeping your blood sugars at normal levels, thus not incurring the extra risk those with uncontrolled sugar levels have?

or have I got the science wrong.

General question: does keeping your bs levels at non-diabetic levels keep your cholesterol risk as the same as a non-diabetic?
 
Lucy,
That's the million dollar question.
From a T1 point of view ,the 50 year survivors with complications have about the same average HbA1c of those without complications.(about 7.2%) There are people with similar HbA1cs who develop complications and don't get to 50 years. There are higher risks with higher HbA1cs.
It's a bit like smoking and lung cancer, not every smoker will develop lung cancer but the more and the longer you smoke the greater the risk.
Some risk figures from the world heart federation.
They mention the risk reduction by controlling glucose levels but unfortunately not at what level. (same for lipids)

http://www.world-heart-federation.org/c ... s/diabetes
 
noblehead said:
borofergie said:
Education is very rarely a bad thing. You just need to make sure that you read books from people expressing a variety of views. The word that is used to describe someone that doesn't read any books is "ignorant".


Stephen I do have A-levels and went to University in my twenties to study so your preaching to the converted when it comes to education! :)

The books I choose to read are probably somewhat different to your own going by what you write on the forum but it's reading nonetheless, I would never ever call someone who doesn't read books ''ignorant'' as there could be number of reasons why they don't read, an educated man wouldn't use such language IMHO.

You're not your.
 
borofergie said:
The word that is used to describe someone that doesn't read any books is "ignorant".
 
noblehead said:
borofergie said:
The word that is used to describe someone that doesn't read any books is "ignorant".

Sorry Nigel - you were advocating not reading controversial books earlier. I gave you a list of controversial books that included Wealth of Nations, Das Kapital and Origin of Species. I wondered how you made the arbitrary distinction between those controversial books and the ones about cholesterol that you appear to disagree with.
 
borofergie said:
Sorry Nigel - you were advocating not reading controversial books earlier. I gave you a list of controversial books that included Wealth of Nations, Das Kapital and Origin of Species. I wondered how you made the arbitrary distinction between those controversial books and the ones about cholesterol that you appear to disagree with.


Thanks for the apology Stephen but you may want to explain to the members of the forum why you think people who don't read books are ''ignorant''..... :?
 
noblehead wrote
you may want to explain to the members of the forum why you think people who don't read books are ''ignorant''.....

He doesn't need to explain to me.

I understood him to mean that people who wilfully choose not to understand at a deeper level, which usually only a book can help them do, what an author is saying, don't therefore fully know the arguments of those with possibly different theories.
The term for not knowing is ignorance.


Geoff
 
borofergie said:
noblehead said:
I don't (despite what some may say) have any problems with these 'sceptics' releasing books and people buying them, after all there's some good money to be made from being controversial and they'll always be a small minority that will buy into their theories.

Das Kapital
Wealth of Nations
Origin of Species
etc
etc
etc
 
Re: cholesterol and diabetes

Unread postby librarising » 30 minutes ago

noblehead wrote
you may want to explain to the members of the forum why you think people who don't read books are ''ignorant''.....



He doesn't need to explain to me.

I understood him to mean that people who wilfully choose not to understand at a deeper level, which usually only a book can help them do, what an author is saying, don't therefore fully know the arguments of those with possibly different theories.
The term for not knowing is ignorance.

I read it that way too. Not 'ignorant' in a nasty way.
 
noblehead said:
Thanks for the apology Stephen but you may want to explain to the members of the forum why you think people who don't read books are ''ignorant''..... :?


Still waiting for a reply Stephen.
 
noblehead said:
noblehead said:
Thanks for the apology Stephen but you may want to explain to the members of the forum why you think people who don't read books are ''ignorant''..... :?


Still waiting for a reply Stephen.

Books are knowledge. Knowledge is the antidote to ignorance. In a world of libraries, second hand books, free e-books, and audiobooks there really is no excuse for not "reading". There is certainly no excuse for openly critising a book that you have never read, especially if you somehow perceive the contents as controversial. With that type of thinking there would be no Origin of Species, no Wealth of Nations, no Das Kapital...

This is not an uncommon point of view. No educated person would advocate not reading:

"Whatever the cost of our libraries, the price is cheap compared to that of an ignorant nation.”
― Walter Cronkite

“A library is like an island in the middle of a vast sea of ignorance, particularly if the library is very tall and the surrounding area has been flooded.”
― Daniel Handler

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
― Harlan Ellison

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
― Benjamin Franklin

“If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.”
― Derek Bok

“...Writings can be stolen, or changed, or used for evil purposes. But isn't the risk worth taking? The more people who share knowledge, the greater safeguard for it. Isn't there more danger in ignorance than knowledge?”
― Lloyd Alexander

“Fear always springs from ignorance.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Science replaces private prejudice with public, verifiable evidence.”
― Richard Dawkins

“To tell you the truth, I used to consider it a disgrace to be found ignorant by other people. But now, I find that I am not ashamed of knowing less than others, and I'm less inclined to force myself to read books. In short, I have grown old and decrepit.”
― Natsume Sōseki

“Ignorance is a knowledge illiteracy.”
― Toba Beta

“I look around and see that many — not all, but many — problems we've got could be solved if our culture simply fostered the habit of reading. Reading books of science, philosophy, history. Reading literature of quality, the sort that touches us because of a more profound reason, such as, for instance, because it's got something to say beyond all the futilities and trifles of life, even while depicting the ordinary in life, at the same time that it says it with style, in a unique, admirable manner. An original one.

Yes, I look around and see that many problems could be solved if we had the habit of reading. But I am not even sure whether there is someone reading these words.”
― Camilo Gomes Jr
 
This has gone off the topic headed...
Whether a person chooses to read up or 'not' to read up is own personal choice .
Not appropiate for further debate on this thread.
Is sounding quite petty and silly to keep resounding the difference now.
Please try and keep to the topic guys/gals.
Anna.
 
YAY!!! The OLD Diabetes.co.uk is back - how I've missed you!

Funny that, although a HUGE number of users were banned/left/run out of town, these arguments have returned? Could it be that the people that were banned/left, weren't the problem after all?

Funny that. :think:

Welcome, NEW users, to the OLD forum. :thumbdown: Maybe we'll see Ken around again soon. :wave:
 
Mileana wrote
Noblehead... Could you consider instead of mocking the man for his viewpoints to either add some reasons why you think as you do about the actual topic, or ask him to provide some evidence.

In all the brouhaha that developed on this thread and its daughter thread, I failed to acknowledge what a great piece of moderating this was.
I applaud you for this Mileana, but when it comes to mods in general, I fear you may be a lone voice , and that thread disrupters are often given too much freedom.

Just wanted to publicly acknowledge your stance in this regard :thumbup:

Geoff
 
Patch said:
YAY!!! The OLD Diabetes.co.uk is back - how I've missed you!

Funny that, although a HUGE number of users were banned/left/run out of town, these arguments have returned? Could it be that the people that were banned/left, weren't the problem after all?




No, its because all those members that were banned for causing trouble are all back again using different usernames :thumbdown:
 
I have only just read his thread and is daughter. I find it quite depressing in many ways. From he medical point of view it is very eveident that there is much o learn about cholesterol and its effects yet because of the one-size-fits -all attitude of the NHS towards diabetes , patricularly T2 a great deal of harm has probably been done and will continue to be done in trying to make patients acieve meaningless targets.
The only hope is for agreed targets on an individualised basis wih he paient being able to choose what level of risk the patient wishes o accept after hearing the NHS recommendations. I was prescribed statins as a precautinary measure on diagnosis and have recently stopped aking them because of intense muscle pain. My female GP does seem aware about statins and women bu is not allowed o say so. She has given me an alternative medication. My cholesrerol ratio has risen slightly because the HDL has risen.
She tells me that the NHS do not recognise the "finer points " and only care about the overall ratio and are becoming even stridcter about their targets. No wonder so much is delegated to Practice Nurses when the GPs have to avoid the embarrassment of being unable o justify these arbitrary numbers.

Regarding "troublemakers " that is very subjective. There are aleways "factions" on these fora but without exchanges of views hey would be very boring and this often invoves heated discussions.

It is always very disappointing to see somene pick an emotive word and derail discussion with it. Sometimes this can be a genuine misunderstanding and hen others don't read the whole thing and the misunderstandings deepen. It doesn't just happen here but on every forum I have ever seen anywhere.

I am very grateful to those who are able to research the scientific data and to interpret it for a clothhead like myself.I am very grateful for hose who share their long experience of diabees also.

Science is constantly moving and discovering new possibilities. It often challenges and sometimes completely reverses longstanding medical practice. I don't suppose there is anyone here who has accepted all they have been told by HCP's and even if they had they would be in a quandary because the advice is rarely consistent.

I know that on his forum people ofen worry that harm may be done by certain opinions being expressd . I understand his o a point but the research is all out there for anyone who want sto read it and posters here are only telling us how they personally apply it to their own situation. ust as HCPs are only following orders. We are not obliged to accept either.

I always heard that it was women who tended o personalise every argument and discussion- that would not seem o be the case here.

The net ime someone tries to derail a thread by what might be a deliberate misunderstanding I would suggest that they us a dictionary or a Thesaurus - or someone else does. Colloquial insults do not always reflect the rue meaning of a word.

I am sure tthat many of us want to know more about cholesterol and diabetes,
 
Sid Bonkers said:
Patch said:
YAY!!! The OLD Diabetes.co.uk is back - how I've missed you!

Funny that, although a HUGE number of users were banned/left/run out of town, these arguments have returned? Could it be that the people that were banned/left, weren't the problem after all?




No, its because all those members that were banned for causing trouble are all back again using different usernames :thumbdown:
If you have any proof of this, or you have any suspicious, please drop me a PM and I'll investigate further.
 
Back
Top