Eat well

I agree for a T1 diabetic, the advice is good and not as bad as some have said.
For T2s, certain whole grain and pulses and fruit along with any starchy veg carbs are to be ate in small portions and greatly reduced if they need to be losing weight.
For those like me, the advice is shocking!
Like me any carbs are poison and sugars and sweeteners are just like pouring petrol on a fire. Low fat is pure sugar! Potato is a ball of glucose!
This must be a revised edition of the advice I was given, only to find out that what I was told to eat was killing me!

But for T1s and some T2s it's not bad!

It could be better!

The trouble with that is it would be the start of a journey getting further and further away from the diet that suits me. I eat berries and the odd apple with cheese perhaps but five a day? And I eat butter, coconut oil, olive oil and lots of cheese since I can't afford to lose any more weight. It may all sound very reasonable, but diabetes isn't open to reason and requires a good deal of work by each of us.
Thinking about it, all of those directives apart from 1 are partly or wholly contradictory to my diet

Unless a T2 eats to their meter, and tests what each food and food combination is doing to the blood glucose, I don't think anyone can say that the diet suggested above is good or bad for that person.

Since I do test, and I do eat to my meter, I can say with certainty that a diet containing wholegrains, fruits (except berries), root vegetables and most pulses has a very harmful effect on my blood glucose.

So I try to avoid them.

There is nothing 'wrong' with a certain food - if your body can tolerate it.

But the majority of T2s do not have blood glucose monitors, so they have no way of knowing what effect their diet is having - except of course the slow rise in hba1c results, and the creep through preD, D, escalating drugs and eventually insulin.

Yes a lot of it makes sense. The things I would really disagree with are:-

4. Saturated fats. They are not bad for us, they are natural and healthy. That's old science they are using in this one. I agree though that too many processed meats aren't good.

5. I would rather they say that veg should be the larger part of the 5 a day and again recent recommendations are for more than 5 portions a day. Some quote 7, 9 or even 12 portions.

9. I wouldn't want to include sugar in baking. There's no nutritional value in it.

To be honest I already ate like that, was never one for puds,cakes, biscuits etc. I cant stand fizzy drinks and only drank water. I made my own bread occasionally, with local stoneground flour.

I got diabetes!

I don't think any food is bad.
But giving that diet to a non-testing T2 diabetic is, in my opinion, irresponsible.

On the other hand, giving that diet to a testing T2 and saying 'try it out, see if these foods send your blood glucose too high, then severely limit or avoid them' would be responsible. Pity that isn't what they are doing.

Plus the fact that I don't see wholegrains and starchy foods as being nutritionally useful, and eating several portions a day fills a person up with nutrient-poor bulk when they could be eating much more nutritionally beneficial foods.

The food recommended may not be necessarily "bad" in itself, but for many type 2s who are not able to tolerate carbohydrates very well, the actual advice is, especially when coming from a "diabetes support" source.

Robbity

I am a vegetarian so no meat or fish for me and I ate to the recommended foods as stated above ..when I was told I had diabetes I was told to eat more carbs to be more in line with the Gide lines ... It almost killed me .. My weight increased ..my sugar levels increased and I felt rotten .. Then I went back to my previous way of eating .. The weight reduced and after getting a bs meter then reducing carbs even more and not eating any low fat things I am slimmer, happier and healthier than I ever was.
So the Diabetes UK is not good for T2s in my personal opinion

I think it's bad advice from start to finish.

Point one. Eat breakfast even if you aren't hungry and space your meal throughout the day. I say, eat when you are hungry and stop when you are satisfied. Don't snack. Fasting seems to be good for a lot of people and particularly so diabetics type 2 who seems to benefit from the 5:2 way of fasting.

Point two, portions size. As above. Eat when hungry until you are satisfied, Don't snack between meals as this spoils your appetite and is bad for your teeth.

Point three tells us to include starch and sugar in our diet. Bad advice. We all know this, at least us who have the means to test.

point four tells us to cut the fat, at least sat fats. No scientific evidence at all, quite the contrary. Sat fats seems to be good for us and as fat doesn't raise blood glucose it should be advocated we eat more fat, not less. It's as if they thought eat fat would make us fat, strange thought,

Point five, the five a day is fine with me as long as we cut out fruit but the the rest is fine indeed.

Point six is one of these if A gives B and B gives C then A gives C. It's not true. Salt is essential and most people regulate their intake just fine. Eat salt if you want to.

Oh, I don't quarrel with point seven, eat fish. Do eat fish. Herring for example.

Point eight, eat pulses, now those needs to be taken in moderation and properly prepared. Soaked for 24 hours in several waters and then boiled and cooled.

Point nine, yeah, right, sugar is better then starch for blood glucose levels but bad for the liver so I'd say avoid it. I must admit to using sugar but not more than half a kilo per year.

I recently saw my doctor to get the results of my HbA1c test. I told him that since diagnosis (Feb 2014) I was following a LC/HF diet. He was brilliant he said "whatever it is you are doing keep doing it, your cholesterol, LDL/HDL, liver, kidney, etc., etc., are fantastic". I am sure it won't be long before they change the "Eat Well" plate to a LC/HF version.

the salt recommendation is of particular interest to me at the moment. on LCHF my resting BP has come down from 160/100 to 115/75. I went through the light headed phase & palpitations in the first month or so before supplementing with salt. That went away & stayed away. Since then, I just salt my food liberally and occasionally add extra salt if I feel my heart skip even a beat.

About 10 days ago, I started a cholesterol experiment by removing the 4 tablespoons of salted butter from my daily diet. I eat twice a day so it's only my evening meal now where i add salt. Obviously, it has not been near enough.

It's been rough. I am light headed every time I stand up & if I have any type of indoor activity, my head starts spinning within 15 mins. Almost fainted last night.

Very stupid of me. Watched Dr.Phinney again. Salt supplementation is for life. Started again today. Plus, the Andean salt that I use has only 0.5gms of sodium for every 1.5gms of salt. Went a little nuts with that and potassium...

Never again will I take that for granted!!

I've concluded that the government dietary guidelines are completely wrong. I only eat meat now.

Brunneria said:

Unless a T2 eats to their meter, and tests what each food and food combination is doing to the blood glucose, I don't think anyone can say that the diet suggested above is good or bad for that person.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Over the last 20 years (slightly longer that my diabetic life) I have watched my father, uncle and cousin, all type II diabetics, progress from taking oral meds to injecting insulin. Whilst some people might accept that as a natural progression my concern for my relatives is that despite injecting insulin, they struggle to maintain level BG readings.

Just over two years ago, I was discussing taking insulin with my GP and thought that it was a natural progression of the disease and then I cut my carb intake, initially to shed some weight which seems to be extremely stubborn to get rid of. especially taking Gliclazide and Januvia, which don't help. I knew I had to watch my BG more closely and it wasn't long before I was able to drop Gliclazide and Januvia (and statins, another story). It was then that I found this and other forums where lots of people have lowered their carb intake to achieve the same results.

So, for me, it doesn't matter what the guidelines are, my approach works for me and lots of other people. I have also discovered by paying for my own C-Peptide test that my pancreas is producing adequate amounts of insulin and long may that continue.

It's hard to reduce advice to short pithy comments so perhaps it's not nuanced enough but there is evidence behind all of what they say.
Eat regular meals; eat breakfast.
1) Eating regularly does mean that insulin and glycemic spikes are reduced (if taken in conjunction with advice on portion size)
The pattern could include lots of very small meals as works for some people It could be 3 meals a day with no snacks ; very much the advice here.
I can also see that intermittent fasting as suggested by Totto has an evidence base but that is a method that reguires a certain amount of discipline
.I see this section being targeted at mindless eating; missing a meal, getting hungry and eating easy snacks. It is extremely noticeable that the culture in the UK at the moment makes such mindless eating very normal. Just look in any high St. People don't seem to know when they are full.
(I was talking with a young Czech girl who works in a bar popular with tourists in the local town. It's one of the things she mentioned; not only do most Brits have a lot of milk in their mid morning coffee, they are the ones that go and get croissants or something else
to eat with it; no-one else does)
There is evidence that missing breakfast is associated with a higher risk of T2. (maybe because of the snacking mid morning)
If you do have higher glucose levels in the morning and if you make your own insulin, eating something may stimulate it's release , without something levels may continue to rise until you eat. Many type 1s also find that if they miss breakfast their glucose levels rise through the morning.
Portion size; Portions have increased tremendously in the last half century. People tend to think larger portions are the norm. Highly palatable, enegy dense foods are not always satiating . ( quiz from the US but has some echos in the UK http://www.choosemyplate.gov/supertracker-tools/portion-distortion.html )
Cut the fat
UK guidelines for fat have never been as low as in the US (35% rather than 30%) .If you are eating larger portions though you may well be eating higher quantities of fat
Certainly some countries guidelines now include more ; here in France it is 35%-40% but fat quality is emphasised .
Saturated fat: In spite of what people say on here most mainstream sources continue to suggest that reducing it can be beneficial and there is evidence to support their view.
See this months updated Cochrane report ' Effect of cutting down on the saturated fat we eat on our risk of heart disease'
http://www.cochrane.org/CD011737/VA...rated-fat-we-eat-on-our-risk-of-heart-disease
There are no guidelines anywhere in the world though that tell people that they should replace fat with products like 'be good to yourself' low fat chocolate whatevers or thick low fat toffee yoghurt with crunchy bits on the side.
It would be just the same if people were told cut down on carbohydrates, I know from being on here for so long that many would jump on equally pseudo foods with a low carb label. The manufacturers love it. Another opportunity to market their products.
Salt Complex: basically you need exactly the right concentration in your blood (otherwise nerves for example won't work properly) if you have too much in the body, the body will compensate and increase the amount of water to get sodium back to the right concentration. A higher volume of water means the heart has to pump harder ie increased blood pressure.
There is lots of salt in many processed foods . People do develop a liking for heavily salted foods and in the past the manufacturers have added high levels. Avoiding processed foods and just adding a little to taste is I think for most people probably fine (if you have high BP then it may be different)
Fruit and Veg. More great (it does say at least) but realistically only 30-40% of Brits meet the five a day at the moment.) Perhaps there should be more emphasis on variety http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/eat-the-rainbow.5651/#post-268869. Maybe a mention that fruits from warmer climes are likely to be higher in sugar so may raise levels higher. (also fruit juice needs a 'warning flag ')
Oily Fish great (don't think anyone disagrees)Except the average Brit actually eats less than a third of a portion a week so most probably don't eat any.
Legumes were the mainstay of original studies on higher carbs and diabetes.
Carb quality isn't emphasised enough (it's much better than the old advice that seemed to suggest all sorts of carbs from muffins to white pasta were 'good' and you should eat plenty) Even one of those who initially wrote the European guidelines on diabetes diets dispairs of what has sometimes been suggested.
http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=1069

Pipp said:

@Pinkorchid I followed that eating plan diligently for several years. I got very fat, and got diabetes. The Eatwell plate nearly killed me.

Click to expand...

Agree, Pop, the Eatwell plate would see me off too; perhaps that is the idea, less drain on the NHS and fewer of us oldies clogging up the system!!!!

phoenix said:

Cut the fat
UK guidelines for fat have never been as low as in the US (35% rather than 30%) .If you are eating larger portions though you may well be eating higher quantities of fat
Certainly some countries guidelines now include more ; here in France it is 35%-40% but fat quality is emphasised .
Saturated fat: In spite of what people say on here most mainstream sources continue to suggest that reducing it can be beneficial and there is evidence to support their view.
See this months updated Cochrane report ' Effect of cutting down on the saturated fat we eat on our risk of heart disease'
http://www.cochrane.org/CD011737/VA...rated-fat-we-eat-on-our-risk-of-heart-disease

Click to expand...

It's interesting that the results of that report refer to the risk of CVD and not actually having CVD. It also noted that it had no effect on the risk of dying from anything.
On another thread I mention several studies that show no correlation between eating saturated fat and cholesterol levels. It's very much like the research done with statins. It seems that you can make statistics to say anything you like.