Okay - I'll call you cynical. There isn't only a single way to deal with things. A government dictated cease and desist is one, all be it very unfortunate, somewhat fascist, approach to dealing with soft drinks. There are others, or do we not consider the employee action that has resulted in a number of tech companies disengaging from defence projects a way of changing the business ethics of a company?
I'm afraid that these days I am very cynical, the days of Lord Leverhulme building model villages for his workers are long gone. I may be wrong, indeed I hope so, but I can only see commercial interests in this. If this relationship turns out beneficial for DUK then I will be very pleased -- and perhaps it will be a ray of "sunlight"As far as the press release goes, it says:
This usually means that employees will raise money and Britvic will undertake matched giving (and everyone does well out of it). Half a million over three years is not a large contribution for a corporate sponsorship deal, so it seems that this is more likely what it going on. It doesn't usually mean "Britvic will stump up a ton of cash to have DUK promote their drinks".
And secondly:
I don't know if anyone else has a "Charities of the year" programme at their place of employment, but this feels a lot more like that type of enterprise than what it is being portrayed to be by the anger in this thread.
And has anyone considered that by being involved with Britvic, it might give DUK the opportunity to influence branding, sugar content and other factors that affect the product they produce, both directly and indirectly through employee engagement?
Before we jump up and down and stamp our feet, perhaps we should take a minute to understand what this "agreement" really is? Just a thought.
And has anyone considered that by being involved with Britvic, it might give DUK the opportunity to influence branding, sugar content and other factors that affect the product they produce, both directly and indirectly through employee engagement?
Many families of T1s take exactly the opposite view and think that DUK focuses on T2 to the detriment of T1. I've heard senior bods in DUK pretty much admit that they have over the last decade too. Let's remember, their advice for T2s only follows what Governments say.... the "known" wisdom on nutrition...!Thought about that for 5 seconds then remembered how the world works...
Maybe Britvic are going to give out free hypo cures to T1's so they can at least have the appearance of being the good guys?
I have often thought that DUK are far better at supporting T1's, possibly down to them being more "deserving" , than the "self inflicted" T2's. I have a sneaking suspicion that their ethos is geared that way hence a lot of their rubbish advice for T2's .... they're just trying to kill us all off that bit quicker.
Or London Rubber Company cosying up to Planned Parenthood charityYou really feel that dotorg will have any influence on Britvic's sugar content? Call me cynical but this is no different from MaccyD sposoring the Olympics and Big Tobacco (formerly) sponsoring F1. It is advertising, cosying up to a charitable organisation to make a brand 'seem' acceptable.
Well as a T2 I would be quite happy for DUK to leave us alone and focus on T1. We really don't need their daft advice making us more sick. I often hear people criticizing the US websites that don't let you leave the page without 'forcing you to part with your money' . Well years back i paid myMany families of T1s take exactly the opposite view and think that DUK focuses on T2 to the detriment of T1. I've heard senior bods in DUK pretty much admit that they have over the last decade too. Let's remember, their advice for T2s only follows what Governments say.... the "known" wisdom on nutrition...!
Maybe Britvic are going to give out free hypo cures to T1's so they can at least have the appearance of being the good guys?.
Interesting, a hypo cure or a hypo treatment, without removing the need for a T1 to need insulin you'll not cure hypos, but a hypo can be treated with Britvic.
If you don't want to spike from a small fruit juice, drink it with food, that's for T1's of course, and as far as web sites and charities go, none focus on T1s, as there's 10 of us to every 90 or so T2s so we're a little un fashionable.
But ND is working for many so it is NOT nonsense. If you look at how ND started, it began as an experiment to mimic bariatric surgery which is currently the only official way to reverse T2D, only they were looking for a non invasive way to do it without using knives and without the accompanying risks to life and limb. By mimicing the effects of this surgery they discovered that as a side effect it seemed to be more successful than they had originally expected, so they expanded the protocol to see if it could be reproduced in the GP surgery maybe under the NHS. There are several success stories attesting to it being effective, but sadly it does not seem to be as effective as surgery, and is reversible which surgery is not.Am I surprised - no. I resigned from DUK a few years back due to their harmful diet advice and lack of understanding that late onset T1 exists. As for needing money for research, some of it goes to Newcastle University to fund things like the ND which is a load of nonsense focussing on Calorie reduction which shows no understanding of the effects carbs and the irrelevance of 'calories' for food intake.
My point is that ND may work but focusses, wrongly I feel, on calories. Focussing on lowering the carbs is likely to do an even better job as 'fat doesn't make you fat' and focussing on calorie reduction will tend to make people lower fat intake rather than carbs. The ND science is weak and where did the famous '800 calorie' figure come from. Perhaps if the focus was on carb reduction there would be even less surgical intervention. Don't forget PHE mantra is to reduce fat intake so the NHS is likely anyway to steer away (wrongly) from carb reduction.But ND is working for many so it is NOT nonsense. If you look at how ND started, it began as an experiment to mimic bariatric surgery which is currently the only official way to reverse T2D, only they were looking for a non invasive way to do it without using knives and without the accompanying risks to life and limb. By mimicing the effects of this surgery they discovered that as a side effect it seemed to be more successful than they had originally expected, so they expanded the protocol to see if it could be reproduced in the GP surgery maybe under the NHS. There are several success stories attesting to it being effective, but sadly it does not seem to be as effective as surgery, and is reversible which surgery is not.
It is aimed at T2D who are primarily not ID, so it is not really applicable to anyone using insulin except maybe to extend a honeymoon phase or if the ID is due to insulin resistance which is predominately a T2D characteristic. What ND has really done is establish a link between adipose fat buildup with insulin resistance and has also shown that reduction in the first can also lead to a reduction of the other. In summary ND provides us with another tool that we can used. It is simple, formulaic and repeatable so will be easier to roll out to the larger diabetic community and requires minimal GP support, WIN WIN,
As for Diabetes UK, it is hard to take them seriously for this and other reasons. Fortunately there is another diabetes charity (diabetes.co. uk) which is significantly more credible.
Thanks - I’ll amend my postdiabetes.co.uk is not a charity. It is a fully fledged commercial business.
The 800 cal figure comes from the need to standardise the intake, which they do by using an industry standard slimmers meal replacement plan that is readily available in supermarkets and chemists. This gives some freedom to choose in future and reduces obsolescence by multi sourcing supplies, As I said this is eventually aimd at an NHS rollout at minimum cost to the NHS.My point is that ND may work but focusses, wrongly I feel, on calories. Focussing on lowering the carbs is likely to do an even better job as 'fat doesn't make you fat' and focussing on calorie reduction will tend to make people lower fat intake rather than carbs. The ND science is weak and where did the famous '800 calorie' figure come from. Perhaps if the focus was on carb reduction there would be even less surgical intervention. Don't forget PHE mantra is to reduce fat intake so the NHS is likely anyway to steer away (wrongly) from carb reduction.
The slagging which .org is getting is really tiresome.
So you think its a good idea for the UK's leading Diabetes charity to link up with a sugar sweetened beverages maker..?
Whatever they are achieving you can't see any problem with that association or that it may annoy one or two people?
They may well do some good things but does that really excuse them from such stupidity?
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?