Front page

[Grazer]

Borofergie commented earlier about a 4ft woman weighing 6.5 stones ( I did try to copy and pasteit, twice, but it wouldn't, but if you would like go back to the thread, you will see it. 4 ft women, I very much doubt it would be a typo mistake from Borofergie.

I don't need to go back and read it. It wasn't a typo, it's exactly what he meant and what I referred to. An extreme (and exagerrated for effect) example of the type of person who would require the least number of calories a day to survive. As I said, short, female, light, inactive. As opposed to one who would require the most; tall, male, heavy and extremely active. Not sexist. Not a pop at women. A scientific statement about caloie requirements. There are many arguments about different views on this forum, but the Male/Female divide isn't, and never has been, one of them. Ask any of the ladies who have been members for some time.

 

[xyzzy]

I still think its a shame it does not have its own recommended position as in "DCUK's stated position is you are free to choose a diet based on your individual needs and values" rather than "as a person, you are free to choose a diet based on your individual needs and values".

Sorry xyzzy, but whats the difference? Isnt that exactly what Benedict and DCUK are saying?

Not quite in my opinion Sid. First I totally think "as a person, you are free to choose a diet based on your individual needs and values" is a brilliant position and is completely what I think and is a perfect fit for "Eat to your meter" so it's not the message that is in anyway wrong just who is delivering it.

As it is written then effectively each of us as individuals is delivering the "you are free ..." message. If it was as I had written in the alternative e.g "DCUK's stated position is ... " then DCUK as an organisation is delivering the message and that carries far more weight and power than us as a bunch of separate individuals. Stating it as "DCUK's stated position is ..." puts the whole thing on the same footing as when DUK comes out with similar position statements.

Going back to the first post I made on the thread then desidiabulum said much the same thing about DCUK

They [DCUK] have a big profile and organization – shouldn’t they be playing a more active role on committees of enquiry etc, as an alternative voice to DUK?

Without specifically making their own position statements then I feel DCUK can never really become that alternative voice. That really has some downsides Sid. Take desidiabulum's post yesterday about the up and coming revision of the N.I.C.E guidelines http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32546. There are loads of weird groups who have been invited to comment about you and me yet DCUK is not one of them which is ridiculous given both the knowledgeable staff within the organisation and of course the membership of the forum and what those members could contribute to that revision debate.

 

[borofergie]

Borofergie commented earlier about a 4ft woman weighing 6.5 stones :?: ( I did try to copy and pasteit, twice, but it wouldn't, but if you would like go back to the thread, you will see it. 4 ft women, I very much doubt it would be a typo mistake from Borofergie.

:shock:

It wasn't a typo, I worked out the numbers very carefully. I set and played with the BMR calculator to find out what body compistion you would need to have a Daily Calorific Need of 1200kcal.

Try it for yourself:
A 4ft woman that weighs 90lbs has a BMR of 1080kcal per day. For sedentary person you multiply the BMR by 1.2 to get the daily calorific need = 1300 kcal per day.

There is no value judgement in this. I was just pointing out the absurdity of a dietary recommendation that suggests that people can control their diabetes on <1200kcal a day. My point is that 1200kcal a day would only work for a very small part of the population - namely very small women.

This was written by borofergie, a small, which I am, sedantary women, which I am not. Nearly wet my self laughing :lol: :lol: :lol: I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF WOMEN BEING SEDANTRY, have you ladies? seen a few men though, especially outside standing about 'working' :wink: Best wishes RRB ps thanks for the good laugh, I certainly needed it, ta.

:shock:

 

[phoenix]

The plate method that started this off is designed to be low calorie for weight loss as well as diabetes. I'm not stereo typing but most people who are diagnosed with T2 are , at diagnosis overweight.
They also tend to be older(less so now but the model dates back to at least 1998; not a new ADA thing).. and

The link used by Borofergie suggests that for weight loss that people reduce calories by 500-1000 cals, though not below 1200 for women or 1800 for men.
That 1200 level is used widely. The minimum weight watchers level is about 1200 calories.

Using my age 60, even slightly active women (of whatever height) with a BMI of 28 would be well within the 12-1400 bracket.
For a sedentary man of a similar age and say 5ft 8 and a similar BMI that not below 1800 looks very generous since their needs are 2000 cals. They would only be able to reduce their requirements by 200 before they exceeded it. It would take a very long time to reduce weight significantly at that level of calories.

For some men the plate actually allows an additional servings of starches ( each serving is 15g, the plate is actually a visual method of implementing the exchange system and 1 fruit =1starch =1dairy . This system links to the ADA exchange scheme which has been around for over 50 years)

 

[borofergie]

Weight loss diets are not sustainable long-term. Fact.

 

[xyzzy]

Weight loss diets are not sustainable long-term. Fact.

Yes that is the point isn't it. Anyone can loose weight by doing a very low calorie diet but at some point you will reach your target weight and want to stop. If you keep on that very low calorie diet it will do what diets are supposed to do and you will continue losing weight.

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/understanding-calories.aspx

You can use the calorie information to assess how a particular food fits into your daily calorie intake. As a guide, the average mans needs 2,500 calories to maintain his weight, and the average woman needs 2,000.

 

[lucylocket61]

I am just over 5' tall and, when i get to my target weight, even I will need more than 1200 cals to keep my weight stable.

And as for sedentary: if I am to achieve the healthy targets for daily/weekly exercise, I wont be able to maintain my weight on 1200 cals a day either.

so I agree that 1200 cals and having half of that as carbs is unsustainable even for me. Even if I was not a diabetic.

The NHS diet seems to be missing the link between weight loss for the general population, and carb control for diet-only type 2's to control their blood sugar. Yet again one diet does not cover all. Or even most. It fails on all counts.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Without specifically making their own position statements then I feel DCUK can never really become that alternative voice. That really has some downsides Sid. Take desidiabulum's post yesterday about the up and coming revision of the N.I.C.E guidelines http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32546. There are loads of weird groups who have been invited to comment about you and me yet DCUK is not one of them which is ridiculous given both the knowledgeable staff within the organisation and of course the membership of the forum and what those members could contribute to that revision debate.

If you feel that strongly about DCUK then why do you continue to post here, if I felt as you do I would not have anything to do with DCUK, personally I feel they are doing a lot of good for the diabetic community as a whole and I am especially pleased that they have provided this platform for diabetics to air their views :clap:

The phrase dont look a gift horse in the mouth springs to mind.

 

[Mileana]

Isn't it possible to think that an organisation 'should' or 'could' do more to point out the individual needs of various groups within the diabetes population and still like the environment on here and hope to influence other diabetics to make informed choices and perhaps hope that the official organisation would sometimes read or be informed about opinions and recommendations on here?

I don't find that being frustrated, perhaps, about lacking clarity or audacity from an organisation has to mean you have to leave it or the environment around it. It would very much depend on the options you have to influence things. It also depends how important you find the topic how much frustration you're willing to put up with.

I think though, that instead of sort of discussing whether someone has the right to be frustrated and still be here, it would be good to see the things we actually agree on with our own personal angles on the topic - namely that people should pick a diet that fits them, which works for them, and make informed choices supported by their meter - and keep telling as many diabetics as we can about the options.

Organisations are slow per definition, really. I can't quite tell what they 'should' do. But I can tell what I would like to do - make the information available to people to make choices. Noone seems to want to prevent us from doing that.

 

[xyzzy]

Without specifically making their own position statements then I feel DCUK can never really become that alternative voice. That really has some downsides Sid. Take desidiabulum's post yesterday about the up and coming revision of the N.I.C.E guidelines http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32546. There are loads of weird groups who have been invited to comment about you and me yet DCUK is not one of them which is ridiculous given both the knowledgeable staff within the organisation and of course the membership of the forum and what those members could contribute to that revision debate.

If you feel that strongly about DCUK then why do you continue to post here, if I felt as you do I would not have anything to do with DCUK, personally I feel they are doing a lot of good for the diabetic community as a whole and I am especially pleased that they have provided this platform for diabetics to air their views :clap:

The phrase dont look a gift horse in the mouth springs to mind.

I must say Sid I think you're just trying to pick an argument with me for the sake of it. I think I'll just go back ignoring your posts again rather than trying to have an adult conversation with you.

 

[xyzzy]

Isn't it possible to think that an organisation 'should' or 'could' do more to point out the individual needs of various groups within the diabetes population and still like the environment on here and hope to influence other diabetics to make informed choices and perhaps hope that the official organisation would sometimes read or be informed about opinions and recommendations on here?

Precisely. Pointing out that someone or in this case the organisation DCUK has the power to effect more change and influence for good than any of us can do individually seems to be a sensible idea to me which is why I have pushed the distinction between Benedicts ...

"as a person, you are free to choose a diet based on your individual needs and values"

and my own

"DCUK's stated position is you are free to choose a diet based on your individual needs and values"

It's then entirely up to DCUK if they wish to act upon mine or other posters similar observations in various other threads.

It does beg the question what motives sit behind those who seem to think it would be a bad idea to encourage DCUK to become more independent and thus act as a more powerful voice for our community. Perhaps they think us fat and lazy T2's should just do as we are told and fill ourselves full of prescription drugs so that we can eat our starchy carbs just like DUK says we should.

 

[noblehead]

The phrase dont look a gift horse in the mouth springs to mind.

Hell that phrase brings back a flood of memories Sid as it was one of my late fathers favourite sayings, very adapt given the focus of discussion here

 

[Giverny]

I must say Sid I think you're just trying to pick an argument with me for the sake of it. I think I'll just go back ignoring your posts again rather than trying to have an adult conversation with you.

Let's get this one back on topic, folks. If there's any personal issues between people, please take it up with them via PM. If this thread is derailed any further, I'll have to close it.

 

[jopar]

It does beg the question what motives sit behind those who seem to think it would be a bad idea to encourage DCUK to become more independent and thus act as a more powerful voice for our community. Perhaps they think us fat and lazy T2's should just do as we are told and fill ourselves full of prescription drugs so that we can eat our starchy carbs just like DUK says we should.

What motivates me! not what you think

DCUK is a company that is making money to provide a internet service, to do this those that run the company don't have to have in-depth knowledge of the subject matter, nor do they have to invest money into research etc... All they need to do is design a website concerning the Subject and hopefully if they've done their research probably any article they provide will be correct! It isn't always, as I know that information provided concerning Insulin Pumping was incorrect, not sure if they've changed the incorrect information, but I did point out the mistakes to Admin at the time! Should really check that they have!

Does this forum represent the real world of living with and controlling diabetes!

Sorry it doesn't it only represents a very small group of diabetics, if you took the membership list as being individual diabetics, which is isn't it's full of spammers, trolls and sock puppet, the actually real members is significantly lower, DCUK don't remove spammers, trolls or sock puppets or banned members etc! Even so the membership numbers as it stands represents less than 0% of UK diabetics!

Which means that the DCUK as a company can not use information contained on the forum, to change currant medical advise concerning diabetic treatments!

And if it decides that it wants to go down the route of attempting to influence medical advice given it can't use information from the forum, as it's so tainted it doesn't even come close to representing anything, apart from there are one hell of a lot of spammers, trolls etc in cyberspace! So it would have to provide research from scratch which not only takes time but means a lot of up front investment, to ensure that data is collect correctly, and fulfils the necessary validation criteria to ensure the research meets the necessary criteria that is acceptable to those who make the decisions..

So Basically DCUK doesn't have the necessary experience, knowledge or finance to put itself forward as a company to speak on my behalf as a diabetic, or decide which regime etc is the most suitable...

I've been diabetic for over 20 years, so have seen many different idea's on 'best practice' some good others dam right awful, and now I'm finding myself being told by individuals, who realistically been diabetic for 5 minutes what I should or shouldn't be doing and what I should or shouldn't be promoting!

I once had a very good pm session with another member on this forum, we discussed our view points in a very sociable manner without the need to attack each other, when we finished batting our ideas around over several pm's, I did ask the member, if what I do works for me, why should I change it to your methods? The reply came back as 'Because you should'!

Says it all really doesn't it!

So an individual who'd only been a diabetic for 5 minutes (under a year) was telling me I had to do what they did because they said so, no consideration that I have been diabetic for over 20 years, where I've had to deal with all what life had to throw at me, which included some very stressful times, where I had to adapt and/or change control, and still I'm on minimum med's (just insulin) don't have any complications but on their say so, I've got to change my ways!


The DCUK, should keep doing what it does, and the forum should be an open area where we all, discuss what works for us and how we tackle the many different situations with our diabetes in tow that life throws at us...

 

[xyzzy]

I must say Sid I think you're just trying to pick an argument with me for the sake of it. I think I'll just go back ignoring your posts again rather than trying to have an adult conversation with you.

Let's get this one back on topic, folks. If there's any personal issues between people, please take it up with them via PM. If this thread is derailed any further, I'll have to close it.

Point taken Giverny and apologies for my lapse in concentration. I for one would be interested to hear DCUK's explanation as to why for example it is not on the list of organisations invited to give opinions to N.I.C.E when patently it would be in an ideal position to act on behalf of the greater forum community who will largely have no say because they are simply individuals. Is that a deliberate position or has DCUK simply never considered actions such as that? I think these kind of questions are very much in line with the topic of the thread which was all about DCUK advice and effectively whether it should offer independent advice distinct from that issued by DUK and others. If Dawn disagrees then I'm sure she will say so.

 

[xyzzy]

What motivates me! not what you think ...

Jo I don't actually disagree with all you just wrote, a lot of it :lol: but not all but I take on board that DCUK may not be total diabetes experts. My point is two fold. Firstly they are certainly more "expert" than some of the groups who have been invited to comment on say the N.I.C.E guidelines and secondly DCUK may not be outright experts but there are long term forum members (yourself included in your own specialist T1 pump area) who I think can bring valuable insights into those kind of discussions. I am a great believer in the Cochrane Collaboration method of asking the damned patients as they might actually know something you don't!

I personally think that the fact that DCUK is a business that is run for a profit should in no way invalidate its ability to comment on diabetic issues. The two issues are distinct in my thinking.

 

[lucylocket61]

Have you got a link please to where it says DCUK is a for=profit company?

 

[xyzzy]

Have you got a link please to where it says DCUK is a for=profit company?

Good point Lucy. Maybe a bad assumption on my part. If it is apologies DCUK

 

[phoenix]

why for example it is not on the list of organisations invited to give opinions to N.I.C.E when patently it would be in an ideal position

Potential stakeholders, unless they have been involved before when they are invited, need to register an interest.
http://www.nice.org.uk/getinvolved/sh/s ... regtop.jsp
Whether they count as a 'national patient and carer organisations that directly or indirectly represent the interests of people whose care is covered by the guideline ' I don't know.

lots and lots of info about how the guidelines are developed and who has a say.
http://www.nice.org.uk/getinvolved/get_involved.jsp
They have lay members of the various working parties and committees and anyone can apply . No vacancies on the diabetic committees at present.

 

[dawnmc]

It just seems a shame that in this day of internet and global stuff, that there must be evidence of what is working or not working in other countries. It seems to be a pick and mix for diabetes, and for all diabetics to have to work out for themselves what works, rather than fall out with their DN or GP's. The powers that be seem to think there is only one way and that some diabetics are being given advice that is definately not helping, hence the high number of people losing their sight, legs or having heart conditions.
People searching the internet for help, will come across DCUK see the video touting starchy carbs and think that is the route. There may be 'diets' on the home page but that is exactly what they are, diets, and not a way of eating that most diabetics can carry on with longterm.
Interesting topic, and good ideas even if some of us have strayed off the path.