Diabetes UK recipe

[ally5555]

Great to hear that Nigel.

However a waiting list of 2-3 months is not very good but probably average.

We are sitting on a time bomb and the cuts being made behind the scenes are truly disgusting. What is so annoying is that obesity rates in children have started to drop - mainly because of the many projects that are being pioneered by dietitians. The general public just do not hear about them.

In Wales one LHB actually asked pts what they wanted and they asked for my more time with dietitians - and in fact that is what they got and the results have been excellent. People need support and they are not getting it!

DMUK are not helping either - their advice is flawed and their recipes use far too much sugar - they do not seem to listen as i think they have been contacted by other dietitians.

I started posting on here because as a HCP who is very passionate about the subject I was outraged at some of the truly awful things that I read about mine and other professions. I have been abused, stalked and mocked by some very nasty individuals but it will not stop me - 9 o clock I reckon ! ( other blog!)

Ally

 

[Unbeliever]

I was asked if I wanted to see a Dietician last week but I refused as what can they really tell you?
Maybe i'll change my mind seeing as my body is becoming more complex by the week but recipes like this are good for special days , or for people willing to take extra meds.

If you can be bothered enugh to read such sites and publications then you probably already know how to treat such foods- a one off treat.

I have to agree with Ally here ShyGirl. I had never seen a dietitian because I was always slim , although my control left a lot to be desired. On a visit to the hoospital I was asked if I would like to speak to a dietitian if she was free. I was really glad to have done so. She explained to me about "liver dumping" which none of the doctors appeared able o do and although she approved my diet she suggested hat reducing carbs a little migh work for me. She was quite right. She also told me I could contact her again if I had any further questions. I later read in a newspaper hat she was doing a "roadshow" in several centres which must have been very helpful to those patients who had not been given the oppportunity to speak directly to the dietitian. I know that I would never have had hat opportunity had I not been at the hospital on that day. Like you, I would probably have dismissed the idea ou of hand. That is the problem. If you encounter HCP's who do not help and don't care you tend to assume they are all the same but obviously that is not true.

 

[Unbeliever]

I was asked if I wanted to see a Dietician last week but I refused as what can they really tell you?
Maybe i'll change my mind seeing as my body is becoming more complex by the week but recipes like this are good for special days , or for people willing to take extra meds.

If you can be bothered enugh to read such sites and publications then you probably already know how to treat such foods- a one off treat.

I have to agree with Ally here ShyGirl. I had never seen a dietitian because I was always slim , although my control left a lot to be desired. On a visit to the hoospital I was asked if I would like to speak to a dietitian if she was free. I was really glad to have done so. She explained to me about "liver dumping" which none of the doctors appeared able o do and although she approved my diet she suggested hat reducing carbs a little migh work for me. She was quite right. She also told me I could contact her again if I had any further questions. I later read in a newspaper hat she was doing a "roadshow" in several centres which must have been very helpful to those patients who had not been given the oppportunity to speak directly to the dietitian. I know that I would never have had hat opportunity had I not been at the hospital on that day. Like you, I would probably have dismissed the idea ou of hand. That is the problem. If you encounter HCP's who do not help and don't care you tend to assume they are all the same but obviously that is not true.

 

[borofergie]

But what it doesn't give you the right to say what knowledge she did or didn't have, and it certainly doesn't give you the right to tarnish every HCP with the same brush..

I didn't.

 

[borofergie]

The statistics for amplutation is 5,000 operations a week, so a percentage of this will be individuals who face a second amplutatution, the T1 I know had her toes removed in 5 different operations not in a single one! But even if you take these figures as first time then as there are over 2.4 million diabetics the actual percentage is very small indeed, so who is scaremongering!

More than 60 percent of nontraumatic lower-limb amputations occur in people with diabetes. Type 2 Diabetes is the major cause of non-traumatic amputation in the developed world. (Individually Type 1 Diabetics are more prone to amputation - but there are many more T2s, hence the larger number overall). (http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/s ... mputations, http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content ... cts/S431-c)

In 2000-2004 the rate of amputation amongst diabetic patients (of ALL types) was 4.65 per 1000 diabetics. We know that more than half of these are T2 diabetics, so at least 2.5 out of every 1000 T2 diabetics face some sort of amputation. (http://care.diabetesjournals.org/conten ... hort?rss=1).

the actual percentage is very small indeed, so who is scaremongering!

0.25% is not a small percentage. This is not scaremongering but an uncomfortable truth. Close your eyes and pretend it's not true if you like, but please don't spread that message to others.

Out of all the ampultee's none were T2 diabetics, only one was a T1 diabetic and I can assure you that the reason's behind losing her toes couldn't be blamed on advice given by HCP's or DUK as I know all were telling her should couldn't eat all the cholocate, biscuits etc she did! Ulcertions of lower limbs, again this is something that I really didn't find in the T2 patients...

I've been frequently my diabetic clinic for over 20 years now, and can't remember seeing anybody who's lost limbs etc...

It would seem that you were very lucky in your experience, but then that's the problem with extrapolating from very small (anecdotal) datasets.

 

[josie38]

I have to say that i have found this topic interesting but claiming that what one poster puts is unbelievable is wrong......

I have been offered appointments by the diabetic dietician and have been asked how long i want the appt for. So it is acceptable to me when someone says that they have had 2 hr appointment with the dietician. When i was first diagnosed i was admitted to hospital and a dietician came to see me and was there for 2 hours going through all the advice etc.

Personally i wouldn't add icing sugar to fruit!

josie

 

[Sid Bonkers]

0.25% is not a small percentage. This is not scaremongering but an uncomfortable truth. Close your eyes and pretend it's not true if you like, but please don't spread that message to others

.25% equals 2 1/2 people out of 1000 personally I would say that is a very small percentage when you consider that something like 70% of diabetics do not meet NICE targets of HbA1c.

And I am not closing my eyes I am controlling my diabetes thank you

 

[phoenix]

The figure given is from a US source.
This doc gives the rate for England as 1.54 per 1000 for minor amputations and 0.98 for major ones. However, there are large variations between areas. I wonder how that relates to the quality of care /education in those areas.
http://www.yhpho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=106797
.

 

[borofergie]

The figure given is from a US source.
This doc gives the rate for England as 1.54 per 1000 for minor amputations and 0.98 for major ones. However, there are large variations between areas. I wonder how that relates to the quality of care /education in those areas.
http://www.yhpho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=106797
.

Good find phoenix...

Doesn't 1.54 (minor amputations) + 0.98 (major amputations) = 2.5 per 1000 (all amputations)?

[It depends how they count those people that had a minor amputation followed by a majort amputation - I'd guess those people would be counted only in the major amputation column and that you can add them].

 

[jopar]

0.25% is not a small percentage. This is not scaremongering but an uncomfortable truth. Close your eyes and pretend it's not true if you like, but please don't spread that message to others.

It would seem that you were very lucky in your experience, but then that's the problem with extrapolating from very small (anecdotal) datasets.

Whichever way you look at it, 0.25% is a small number..

Now the information you provide is satistical data colleced between 2000-2004... So can be a bit missleading satistics when determining and reflecting what this means for future diabetics.. As this data is based on a Time lag an indictor of outcomes of older regimes/treatment and drugs available not the then current regimes/treatment and drugs available after this time spam..

Phoniex link shows that in the UK, a different picture between 2007-10 the satistical figure of amplutations have dropped from the suggested 4.7 per 1000 down to 1.54! Now this could be that it's concetrating on one demorgraphic area and not as a whole or it may be that improved regimes/treatments and drugs do have an impact on out come..

I found Phoniex's link interesting, as the maps show that I actually live in an area that is coloured as being one of the highest areas's for amplutations for both diabetic and non-diabetic..

Now is this because we have poor support for management/treatment could well be, as I do know that for T1's insulin pumps aren't easily available (or in my surgery DSN's words, rare as hens teeth) and that you won't easily get new T2 medication such as Bayetta or victoza etc any new regiemes/treatments are pretty slow to filter through to my area.. But I am also fully aware that I live in an area that demorgraphically has one of the highest percentage of elderly in the country..

So when it comes to satistics such as..

Suicide in the Ederly, we have the highest percentage..
When it comes to care provision and dementia's etc we hold the highest percentages etc..

So when it comes to satistics one has to be very carefull how to interpretate them..

So no I haven't got my eyes closed as you suggest

As to messages

Well I'm not giving misleading information to suggest that there's a fore gone conclusion that if you eat carbs then you will lose your legs..

Which is something you are doing, as well again 0.25% is a small figure..

 

[borofergie]

.25% equals 2 1/2 people out of 1000 personally I would say that is a very small percentage when you consider that something like 70% of diabetics do not meet NICE targets of HbA1c.

Whichever way you look at it, 0.25% is a small number..

That's interesting. What would would you call "not a small number"?

At these rates:
One diabetic in every 217 will face an amputation
One T2 diabetic in every 400 will face an amputation
As I said before, T2 diabetes is the leading cause of non traumatic amputation in the developed world.

Apparently the rate of amputation among T2 diabetics is also on the increase:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8427937.stm

Of course, it's up to you to determine whether these risks (plus the additional risk of blindness, neuropathy, heart failure, etc, etc, etc) are worth sprinkling sugar on your banana.

 

[pianoman]

In purely abstract terms the number 0.25% is small when compared to say 1.0% or even 2.5% or yet again 25% but in practical terms that small percentage is probably little consolation to that real person who is facing amputation, blindness or kidney failure... for all of which I understand Diabetes is a significant, if not the leading, cause.

If you enjoy refined carbohydrates and can manage your BG while including refined carbohydrates such as icing sugar then no worries. For myself I can't, and much like someone with a gluten or lactose intolerance or a peanut allergy: I have adapted my diet to avoid those foods which cause me grief... and I don't even miss them anymore. There is such an huge variety of food out here in the big wide world; so I don't feel that icing sugar is some kind of birth-right that we all must enjoy at any cost

 

[jopar]

.25% equals 2 1/2 people out of 1000 personally I would say that is a very small percentage when you consider that something like 70% of diabetics do not meet NICE targets of HbA1c.

Whichever way you look at it, 0.25% is a small number..

That's interesting. What would would you call "not a small number"?

At these rates:
One diabetic in every 217 will face an amputation
One T2 diabetic in every 400 will face an amputation
As I said before, T2 diabetes is the leading cause of non traumatic amputation in the developed world.

Apparently the rate of amputation among T2 diabetics is also on the increase:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8427937.stm

Of course, it's up to you to determine whether these risks (plus the additional risk of blindness, neuropathy, heart failure, etc, etc, etc) are worth sprinkling sugar on your banana.

It's totally up to the individual to do their own 'Risk' assessement not for you to enforce your opinion onto another individual your 'Risk' assessment...

I have no wish to telll another diabetic that they can't eat a banana because as in my 'Risk' assessment it's not worth the risk of facing a likelyhood of being one of the 0.25% of people who lose a limb..

Same as I don't go climbing up a mountains, because my risk assesement of this activity is too risky that I would come to harm doing it, but I know plenty of people who think that the Risks invovled is all worth it!


Personal comment edited.

 

[borofergie]

I clearly said that it's up to the individual to determine the risks themselves. I'm just quoting the numbers, not forcing my opinion on anyone. I just demonstrated that amputation is a potential consequence for T2 diabetics.

I'm not sure how me using peer reviewed papers to demonstrate something is "enforcing my opinion on others [sic]" but you stating that "ulcertions of lower limbs, again this is something that I really didn't find in the T2 patients..." is not.

Personal comments edited.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

.25% equals 2 1/2 people out of 1000 personally I would say that is a very small percentage when you consider that something like 70% of diabetics do not meet NICE targets of HbA1c.

That's interesting. What would would you call "not a small number"?

At these rates:
One diabetic in every 217 will face an amputation
One T2 diabetic in every 400 will face an amputation

I think you are missing my point rather borofergie so I'll repeat it, if around 70% of diabetics are badly controlled where do you think most of those 1 in 400 diabetics who suffer amputations are going to come in that statistic, I am in no way making light of diabetic complications as I have already stated, but the simple truth is that if you are well controlled and you have not suffered complications prior to your diagnosis as many do then the risk is small, its still there but it is small and personally I am not going to pull my hair out or wring my hands worrying about something that probably wont happen. Neither am I going to start scaring others by telling them that if they eat a spoonful of sugar it will lead to complications. For the record I do not and would not eat sugar or any type of sweetener but lets get real here a small amount of sugar every now and then is not going to cause any long term effects at all.

On the other hand if you are one of the many out of control diabetics then having sugar in your tea and coffee every day probably isnt a good idea.

pianoman referring to diabetes as 'carb intolerance' is at best ill informed, I am diabetic but I am not intolerant to carbs, far from it I eat them every day and am still well controlled. And to suggest that you cant eat carbs because you are carb intolerant is just perpetuating a falsehood, you may choose not to eat whatever you like but it is a choice and we all choose our own limits in all walks of life. I choose not to eat raw tomatoes or gooseberry's thats not to say I am intolerant to them its just my choice. An intolerance to a food suggests an allergy, diabetes is not carb allergy.

I choose to eat between around 60g and 130g of carbs a day maybe, give or take a piece of fruit, you chose to eat a lot less, neither of us is right or wrong its just about choice.

Edited 3 times, dyslexia eh :lol:

 

[ClaireG 06]

Jopar and Borofergie could you please agree to disagree over this and keep personal comments off the forum. Thank You.

 

[borofergie]

I think you are missing my point rather borofergie so I'll repeat it, if around 70% of diabetics are badly controlled where do you think most of those 1 in 400 diabetics who suffer amputations are going to come in that statistic, I am in no way making light of diabetic complications as I have already stated, but the simple truth is that if you are well controlled and you have not suffered complications prior to your diagnosis as many do then the risk is small, its still there but it is small and personally I am not going to pull my hair out or wring my hands worrying about something that probably wont happen.

I agree 100%. My entire motivation in controlling my own diabetes is that "there are no symptoms of well controlled diabetes" (I can't prove this, but if it isn't true, it suits me to believe it).

I also don't eat sugar coated bananas for now, but I hope in the future, with a bit of weight loss, that I'll be able to tolerate them (or more likely a few chocolate hobnobs now and again).

But I'd also argue that well controlled diabetics can make their own decisions when in comes to diet. I celebrated a recent HbA1C result with a huge portion of trifle.

My concern is for the (70%) that haven't found a way to control their diabetes, for these people eating sugar coated bananas is not the best place to start looking.

 

[pianoman]

pianoman referring to diabetes as 'carb intolerance' is at best ill informed, I am diabetic but I am not intolerant to carbs, far from it I eat them every day and am still well controlled. And to suggest that you cant eat carbs because you are carb intolerant is just perpetuating a falsehood, you may choose not to eat whatever you like but it is a choice and we all choose our own limits in all walks of life. I choose not to eat raw tomatoes or gooseberry's thats not to say I am intolerant to them its just my choice. An intolerance to a food suggests an allergy, diabetes is not carb allergy.

I think you are missing my point rather Sid... a person who has a lactose or gluten intolerance or even some levels of peanut allergy can still choose to eat them but faces the consequences of their choice: from mild discomfort possibly, to swollen face, difficulty breathing etc...

I could choose to eat a banana dusted with icing sugar but I know from experience that it would raise my BG level above my comfort level and I may not have any immediate or acute issues with that -- or I may suffer blurred eyesight, fuzzy thinking, headaches, tingling in the extremities etc... and possibly require a day or so to re-establish BG control. If kept choosing that banana with icing sugar: in the long term this could lead to additional complications.

There seems to be this attitude that all of us with Diabetes ought to be able to eat the same as "everyone else" -- even if it takes medication -- and yet people seem to be a great deal more understanding when faced with someone who has a food allergy or intolerance... why is this any different?

If "intolerance" is a misleading term word why is a key diagnostic test for Diabetes called a "Glucose Tolerance Test"?

 

[pianoman]

My concern is for the (70%) that haven't found a way to control their diabetes, for these people eating sugar coated bananas is not the best place to start looking.

I agree and this is right back on the original topic of this thread: regarding the dietary suggestions being made supposedly to help these 70% of poorly controlled diabetics... namely that its OK to eat starchy fruit and sugar.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

There seems to be this attitude that all of us with Diabetes ought to be able to eat the same as "everyone else" -- even if it takes medication --

"Attitude"? "all of us with Diabetes ought to be able to eat the same as "everyone else""? Sorry I missed the bit where that was mentioned, I do remember lots of mentions of "we are all different" but that has a totally different meaning doesn't it?