lucylocket61 said:Thanks. I got confused with this bit:
I still think that's a valid position to promote to a new person as they have to be pointed in a direction away from "starchy carbs" but still feel confident when they read the new advice that its coming from a reliable and trustworthy source.
and I think I misread the 'new advice' bit and thought that Daisy1's advice was not up-to-date and was being replaced with new stuff.
Its been a long day.......
the goal of
diabetes therapy should be to achieve glycaemic
status as near to normal as safely possible in all three
measures of glycaemic control, namely HbA1c, fasting
premeal and postmeal plasma glucose. Within these
parameters, and subject to the availability of therapies
and technologies for treating and monitoring postmeal
plasma glucose, a two-hour postmeal plasma glucose
goal of <7.8 mmol/l (140 mg/dl) is both reasonable
and achievable.
please don't flame my thread its been good up to now...
lucylocket61 said:please don't flame my thread its been good up to now...
I have not flamed your thread
I have asked questions and asked for clarification in case my understanding has been flawed.
I think I am owed an apology for your post. I ask questions and get and give advice all over this forum. No-one has said I am flaming by asking.
I am very hurt and sad and dont feel it is helpful to my confidence in asking questions anymore
xyzzy said:lucylocket61 said:so are people thinking of replacing or changing the post that Daisy1 puts up for newbies, in the light of new evidence?
I hadn't really thought of it in those terms.
Of course the following has been written with my personal bias, others have equally strong and valid opinions so please don't flame my thread its been good up to now...
viviennem said:Xyzzy, I don't disagree with anything that you say, but for some people at least I think your post is best as a 'second stage'. In my opinion, for some it's too much, too soon, as a welcoming post.
Many people are ready for it straight away, but I've noticed that at least some 'newbies' don't even understand the different food groups, and don't seem to have any sort of a scientific background - aren't ready yet to check sources, etc.
The Introductory Post as we have it now is gentle, and offers a welcoming hand. It gives enough info for the newly-diagnosed, maybe frightened person to think about. It was revised last year by the mods and the admin team, and has had a great deal of thought put into it.
Your post, following on the same thread, shows that there's more to it, when people are ready to take it further. It also shows, as you say, that the 'controlled carb' approach has a good, solid, official background, so can be tried safely.
Anyone who is told, as I was, by the diabetes specialist GP, that I would inevitably go blind and lose my feet, and that if I ate low carb/high fat I'd probably die of DKA before I had chance to have the heart attack, needs soothing and reassuring first. Except me ! :lol: :evil:
The point is that we don't know how people are reacting to the news, when they first join. We need to be a little cautious at first in how much detailed info we face people with. I do favour the 'softly, softly' approach to begin with.
Just my opinion, of course - others may differ!
Viv 8)
And I'm sorry to say it, but your post immediately above would make my eyes glaze over, if I didn't already know what you are talking about. The language in the article you quote is far too technical for many people. Let's keep it simple, huh? I'm sure the Admin team will take on board what you say and have a good think about it, but don't forget we're dealing with the lowest common denominator.
xyzzy said:lucylocket61 said:Thanks. I got confused with this bit:
I still think that's a valid position to promote to a new person as they have to be pointed in a direction away from "starchy carbs" but still feel confident when they read the new advice that its coming from a reliable and trustworthy source.
and I think I misread the 'new advice' bit and thought that Daisy1's advice was not up-to-date and was being replaced with new stuff.
Its been a long day.......
I'll try and make that a bit clearer. So...
New T2 member arrives with their first post. In my head it then goes likes this...
1) Am I sure they really sound like a correctly diagnosed T2 if so...
2) Must warn them off 50% total carbs of which 33% must be starchy ones as that will hurt them
3) Tell them to cut out sugar and at least half starchy carbs as a simple portion control method to get them going.
4) Tell them to replace the difference with list of food stuffs the Swedes recommend (i.e a trustworthy source)
5) Point out advice in 3) & 4) is what would be given by another modern health service (i.e a trustworthy source)
6) Point out everyone is different and they may need to go up or down from half starchy carbs.
7) Mention 130g as a good start as 130g is the latest American recommendation so again is a trustworthy source.
8 ) Nod to GI by mentioning swap to "brown" rice, pasta etc but secondary advice to cut carbs.
9 ) Nod to VLC by mentioning some people can give up meds and "the trustworthy source" doesn't say no
10) Introduce carb counting as a concept.
11) Introduce importance of testing and meters.
12) Introduce importance of safe levels ( 8.5, 7.8 ) and why those numbers are trustworthy.
jopar said:1) you aren't medically qualified to determine if somebody is correctly diagnosed, even if you were you it's illegal to make a diagnosed without being privy to the patients medical records etc..
jopar said:2) Again you don't know if the 50% carbohydrate ratio, will hurt that individual at all, again the individual requires assessment to what their individual needs are by a qualified persons, who needs to be privy to the individuals medical records.
jopar said:6) So Far you've neglected that everybody is different, as you are telling what they have to do, based on your own opinion and what you suggest to us works for you... You are also pointing people in one directions and classing only the information that agree with your personal opinion... Not what I call an 'we all different' approach.
jopar said:12) The figures given are based on continuing data collection and research and is based on WHO recommendations, where the patient can reasonably expected to achieve with or without medication... And studies has shown to attempt to drive these figures lower with high dosages of medication may be detrimental to the individual rather than help.. And again they are a guideline and each individual needs to be assessed to what...
jopar said:See I don't inform people how many carbs they shouldn't or shouldn't be eating... What I prefer to do is actually educate them about carbs and there probably reaction, and what options are open them to change that reaction, and when needs be give them the pro's and con's of various different options...
catherinecherub said:I for one am glad you are asking questions Lucy, how else are you going to learn?
viviennem said:Xyzzy, I don't disagree with anything that you say, but for some people at least I think your post is best as a 'second stage'. In my opinion, for some it's too much, too soon, as a welcoming post.
Many people are ready for it straight away, but I've noticed that at least some 'newbies' don't even understand the different food groups, and don't seem to have any sort of a scientific background - aren't ready yet to check sources, etc.
The Introductory Post as we have it now is gentle, and offers a welcoming hand. It gives enough info for the newly-diagnosed, maybe frightened person to think about. It was revised last year by the mods and the admin team, and has had a great deal of thought put into it.
Your post, following on the same thread, shows that there's more to it, when people are ready to take it further. It also shows, as you say, that the 'controlled carb' approach has a good, solid, official background, so can be tried safely.
Anyone who is told, as I was, by the diabetes specialist GP, that I would inevitably go blind and lose my feet, and that if I ate low carb/high fat I'd probably die of DKA before I had chance to have the heart attack, needs soothing and reassuring first. Except me ! :lol: :evil:
The point is that we don't know how people are reacting to the news, when they first join. We need to be a little cautious at first in how much detailed info we face people with. I do favour the 'softly, softly' approach to begin with.
Just my opinion, of course - others may differ!
Viv 8)
And I'm sorry to say it, but your post immediately above would make my eyes glaze over, if I didn't already know what you are talking about. The language in the article you quote is far too technical for many people. Let's keep it simple, huh? I'm sure the Admin team will take on board what you say and have a good think about it, but don't forget we're dealing with the lowest common denominator.
I agree with Viv, if this had been presented to me when newly diagnosed I would have asked someone to decipher it for me I think. This is a lifelong condition and people need to be eased in gently IMHO. The post that Daisy offers is a general explanation of what needs doing as a starter. The more questions that newbies ask when they read Daisy's post means the more they begin to understand. Technical stuff can come later IMHO.
It is a pity that some more newbies do not add to this thread.
borofergie said:I'm all for the international brotherhood (and sisterhood) of Diabetics, but I don't understand why T1s seem to be the most vocal critics of low-carbing as an intervention for T2 diabetes.
hanadr said:May I extend your explanation of "eating to your meter".
xyzzy said:I agree 100% with what Borofergie has said
I would add Jopar that by advising people to restrict carbs I do no more than Daisy's text which also suggests that T2's might want to look to reduce carbs. All I do by adding 130g is to clarify what "reduce" might mean based on what the American Diabetic Association now recommends. Perhaps you want to tear up Daisy's text as well as mine?
As Borofergie may have been somewhat shy in defending VLC then I'll do it for him even though I'm not a VLC follower myself. The Swedes DO mention VLC and give examples of VLC diets. They conclude with if a PATIENT CHOOSES TO GO ON A VLC DIET then monitor them closely to make sure no problems happen.
On 3 ) Don't quite get your point here Jopar. We are supposed to be helping people with T2D not non diabetics. You seem to be confusing the concept of a diet for weight loss against a restricted carb regime to help with blood sugar levels.
On 6 ) I've made it clear that all I want is for this kind of diet to be added as an option that should be explained to T2D's at diagnosis. The keyword is option. We had the same debate in another thread the other day Jopar or don't you remember? I said to you then my emphasis is safe levels, not diets. People can eat what they want. The key thing is their 2 hour after meter reading. If they are safe whatever they eat great. Even if they are not safe I have no issue unless they say they are safe. Again you try and make out I say things that I don't and paint me as some fanatic.
On 8 ) you are just assuming the Swedish diet is a GI diet that has been "faffed around with". Your premise is entirely false as it is not primarily a GI based diet. The moderately carb restricted Swedish diet is essentially low carb high "safe" fat where carbs come first and GI is secondary. That's the whole point and why it works and has been proven to work.
Jopar rather than keep trying to paint every post that involves me as "the dictator xyzzy say this" why don't you find everyone some evidence that says the moderately restricted 30% total carb diet recommended in Sweden does not give better outcomes than the current UK high carb approach for T2D's or that the 130g ADA recommendation does not give better outcomes for T2D's than the UK high carb approach.
Maybe you should present why you think a 50% total carbohydrate diet of which 33% should be starchy carbs works for T2D's who just take Metformin and will keep their levels under 8.5.
Jopar rather than keep trying to paint every post that involves me as "the dictator xyzzy say this" why don't you find everyone some evidence that says the moderately restricted 30% total carb diet recommended in Sweden does not give better outcomes than the current UK high carb approach for T2D's or that the 130g ADA recommendation does not give better outcomes for T2D's than the UK high carb approach.
Maybe you should present why you think a 50% total carbohydrate diet of which 33% should be starchy carbs works for T2D's who just take Metformin and will keep their levels under 8.5.
xyzzy said:borofergie said:I'm all for the international brotherhood (and sisterhood) of Diabetics, but I don't understand why T1s seem to be the most vocal critics of low-carbing as an intervention for T2 diabetes.
Jopar, I had assumed you were T2 like me but no. You appear to be a T1 with a pump. Great, good luck to you mate. Go eat your high carb or GI based diet to your hearts content and pump the insulin to cover it with my full blessing.
I would never ever ever ever presume I could tell a T1 about diet in the detail you just tried to prescribe to me. I would expect and deserve ever single consequence of that action including being warned not to do such a thing by admin or a moderator.
So as a matter of interest what is your expertise in stating what a T2 on Met diet should be?
jopar said:xyzzy said:Maybe you should present why you think a 50% total carbohydrate diet of which 33% should be starchy carbs works for T2D's who just take Metformin and will keep their levels under 8.5.
Simples it does work...
But the more complex answer to this one is, You need to know what your actual needs are that maintains your bodyweight at a healthy level, and enables your body to repair itself and match your food intake to this.. Plus match your energy levels etc..
jopar said:Problem is, that most peoples actual appetite is bigger than their actual needs... It this that causes all the problems for a lot of people... The calculations says that they only need 150g's of carbs yet their eyes and bellies want to eat 250g's of carbs...
So as you can see I'm not telling people that they can stuff their faces with carbs, but the carb they are taking on board has to fit their needs..
jopar said:Oh, how do I know this information to work, because I've seen it in actions I used to work in the care field and dealt with many T2 diabetics, some did very well and these tended to be those who's appetites fitted well with their needs, so just needed little tweaks... Others would need some major readjustments and a lot of encouragement to cut back on their starchy carbs, and encourage to bulk out if needs with more no carby friendly foods, such as vegetables and meat sources so that they ate the same quantity of foods just in a better balance..
Others well they weren't going to listen to any advice what's so ever and nor were they going to take medication as prescribed one chap is unforgettable on this score, he exasperated us all... Totally convinced that he only needed to take his metformin if his blood sugars were normal :shock: Which wasn't going to be happening as he wouldn't listen to any dietary advice either...
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?