We people with diabetes who don't believe the mainstream advice usually use our glucose meters which instantly shows us mainstream advice doesn't keep our bg in acceptable numbers.
The writers of this mainstream advice have probably never tested a diabetic before and after eating their advised food and compared that to the bg of a diabetic who eats less carbs.
This is what I don't get. They're not fools. They must be aware of the numbers of people who have taken what is a relatively simple action - reduced their overall carb intake - and who have consistently returned both better bg and A1c numbers, which would imply less complications and lower treatment costs. So why would they continue to give advice that's not effective and potentially even harmful? Surely if there was uncertainty about whether certain advice was harmful you would tone it down, or qualify it?
I get that perhaps it takes the tanker of "scientific consensus" a long time to change course, and that things like NICE and/or the DoH must have to be convinced not just by anecdote but by evidence - but is this happening? Are there research projects going on which can bring about this change in course, and the mainstreaming of "diabetic experience" in the treatment protocols?
It also implies to me that this forum (and I guess there are other fora like it) must get approached about participating in research projects, since you provide an excellent cohort and a significant sample size? And if you do get approached - and perhaps even participate, I'm new so I don't know - would that suggest that maybe the tanker is turning?
I'm sure these sorts of things must have been done to death on the forum over the years, I'm just starting my more abstract "information gathering" phase (as opposed to my very subjective "what do I need to do for my health" phase), so if anyone can point me to any relevant threads rather than having to type loads of stuff our again, I'd be grateful!