• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Eatwell?

"A palm size of meat or fish..." That sound you can hear? That's me laughing my leg off.
 
I can get away with eating approx 100 carbs a day but even I would struggle to keep my BS under control with the eatwell plate.
 
KK123 said:
To be honest, I'm not convinced it's that great for the general population.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest, in the piece it mentions a difference between starchy carbs and sugary carbs. In my opinion the difference is minimal but how do those with T1 see it? I mean in general terms apart from hypo treatments.
 
KK123 said:
To be honest, I'm not convinced it's that great for the general population.
Click to expand...
It isn't. The standard government diet was originally intended by the US government to keep people healthy so young men would be fit enough to be sent to war, but it was hijacked by the US Department of Agriculture and evolved to keep farmers in the black, not make people healthy. More recently it's been hijacked by people who believe fat and meat are unhealthy, but without any rigorous scientific scrutiny on this idea.
 
The book which really woke me up about ways of eating (and some can be woes), the pharmaceutical industry, and 'health' recommendations is
The Diet Delusion by Gary Taubes
which is an eye-opening critique of medical advice over the last half-century, and of where that advice stems from. It's also known as Good Calories Bad Calories.

I recommend it to anyone doubting there's such a thing as Big Pharma.
Geoff
 
paulmh said:
why is there such a disconnect between mainstream advice and the experience of people actually suffering with diabetes?
Click to expand...
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.
 
As a T1 the difference between starchy carbs and sugary carbs is in the timing of the jab - same insulin, same amount for the same amount of carbs - just different timing.

From a T2 point the article does say some people find having a lower carb diet helps control BGL - and if you've got half a brain it makes sense, well a lot more sense then eating the same diet as someone without it, especially if you're already eating a 'healthy' eat well plate - why would you carry on doing something that makes you ill?...........ah yes! the Doctor can prescribe you something for it :meh:
 
paulmh said:
Friend of mine posted this on Facebook, it seems very much at odds with what I've read here - why is there such a disconnect between mainstream advice and the experience of people actually suffering with diabetes?

https://www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/diabetes_type_2
Click to expand...
They are a severely conflicted organisation with links to the food industry and a memorandum of understanding with the Vegan Society. Their advice for T2 is appalling and their knowledge of the disease is apparently lacking too if their tweet is anything to go by...

https://twitter.com/BDA_Dietitians/status/1076092529228083201
 
Guzzler said:
Just out of interest, in the piece it mentions a difference between starchy carbs and sugary carbs. In my opinion the difference is minimal but how do those with T1 see it? I mean in general terms apart from hypo treatments.
Click to expand...

Hi Guzzler, I see it as exactly the same, carbs are carbs. The only difference I used to notice (just after diagnosis and before I really knew what was going on), was that sugary carbs spiked me more quickly and starchy ones spiked me just as high at the peak but took a little longer, ie, barely any difference.
 
KK123 said:
Hi Guzzler, I see it as exactly the same, carbs are carbs. The only difference I used to notice (just after diagnosis and before I really knew what was going on), was that sugary carbs spiked me more quickly and starchy ones spiked me just as high at the peak but took a little longer, ie, barely any difference.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That's what I suspected and have been meaning to ask for ages.
 
Antje77 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
paulmh said:
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.
Click to expand...
One of the "(many) problems is that the Eatwell Guide is govt policy (ridiculous though that may sound) so it is quite hard for other organisations to stand up against it. Until Public Health England can officially abandon that there will be little progress. Although a glimmer of hope has appeared across the pond as the American Diabetes Association has just announced that low carb diets are a possible treatment for T2 diabetes. As we usually mirror the US in health matters a few years after this may be the break we have been waiting for although don't hold your breath). The other problem is that SACN (the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition) who advise PHE and do their research for them is filled with people who have financial links to the food industry. As most of us know eating freshly cooked home prepared food from raw ingredients doesn't make the processed food industry much profit so there are many conflicts of interest in nutrition science.
This is all quite available info with a bit of digging but until the whole applecart is upset then don't expect too much change.
Apart from news from the US the only other light on the horizon will probably come from the Tom Watson/Keith Vaz diabetes initiative in the House of Commons which may shake things up a bit unless it gets lost in political dogma and infighting and well we know how that usually works out....

Conspiracy theorist.. who me?
 
Over the years of eating low carb and protesting that 'normal' diets don't work I have been told that I am deluded, a liar, a glutton, idle, that I am risking my life and my health - that their diets always work if followed correctly - in other words, doctors just do not want to be contradicted because they know that they are right, even when shown to be wrong.
I have seen lies written about Dr Atkins - his health, his weight and the cause of his death - presumably he has to be made out to be a liar and a charlatan too.
 
Back
Top