Had my first appointment with the Diabetic Dietician today!

totsy

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,041
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Insulin
Dislikes
liars, animal cruelty
Ok ,time out now,this is yet another thread that has turned into argument,I would like to say that as diabetics this forum is meant to be about expereinces and how they work for each and every one of us,there should be NO trying to convert anybody into our own way of thinking
The choice each individual makes is exactly that a CHOICE
I as a diabetic find reading what other people have done and then deciding if id like to try this myself,if it works great if not you probably havent lost anything.
At the end of the day we all must do what works for us as everybody is totally different,
Stop trying to badger people into your own beliefs,this is wrong,let the newbies read your experiences and choose what they want to do because at the moment this petty bickering is frightening and confusing for new visitors,
If this carries on then it will be another thread closed,I thought we were mostly adults in here ,its as bad as my 3 kids bickering,Please remember why WE are here (to help not hurt)
 

Jem

Well-Known Member
Messages
570
Dislikes
People that feel just because diabates is a life-threatening "illness" it should be treated with kid gloves and nobody is allowed to have a laugh. My humour got me through abuse, near death experiences, serious and debilitating illnesses and lifelong pain and deformity - why give up the thing that works??
Ally I would be really grateful to have some kind of response from you regarding my long post on page 7 of this thread. If nothing else to acknowledge that you've read it would be nice.

I do see a lot of tension but perhaps a little understanding might go a long way.

As to vitamin and mineral deficiencies in low-carbing ... yes it IS possible, but rather a slightly low vitamin c count which could be PARTIALLY addressed with supplements than a dangerously high blood sugar which will lead to blindness, loss of limbs, heart failure, renal failure and early painful death.

Also, vitamin and mineral deficiencies are just as common in low fat diets.

Your comments are of course welcomed but you refuse to make any allowances for the fact that MANY of us on this site are successfully achieving better health through our dietary choices (that don't match your recommendations) . How many of low carbers on here have said "ok so "some" people can survive and thrive on high carb, but NOT ME" ??? A fair few I think ... yet I am still waiting for a comment such as "low carb is an option" from ANYBODY in diabetic healthcare profession.

J/x
 

jopar

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,222
If some-one wants to go to a low carb diet, then fair enough go for it.... No problems what ever floats your boat....

But to achieve long term good health etc.... You NEED to do your research, why?

If we take what is commonly considered to be a 'healthy diet' this is based on the human being gaining all the nutrients, that they need to give energy, maintain and repair the body and protection against other diseases such as cancer etc... That suits most human beings platte of taste ranges, it's reasonably available, easily achievable....

Low carb diets can be difficult as they do restrict or leave out many food types that contain essential nutrients so these need to found by other means...

Take the humble tomato, that has both anit cancergenic and anti-aging propeties, but yet Berbstien resticts the tomato as being too much of a problem!

How many people know when is the best part of the day, that they asorb the nutrients from there food?

I do....

Middle of the day to early afternoon, this is when we should be eating our main meals.... Eating in the evening means that you are not utilising your food as your body ability of absorption of nutrients is at it's lowest ebb...

So we need the likes of ally555, who do actually know there stuff, and is happy to show concern and point out some of the pitfalls surrounding any diet that one decides is suitable for ones self... But it is then our responsibility to go and research further so that we can overcome and avoid that pitfall that could happen to maintain our belief in whats right for us...

To make comments that because someone isn't a diabetic so haven't got a glue is out of order to say the least... Sometimes being a step removed from something actually gives a better view and perspective...

And this is the point, when I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.... I've read many a post where someone ponders the merits of low carb style diet... You then get to research sutdies that have been carried out over the years in different areas, but all those studies that are carried out with the genreal control guidelines of diabetes are trashed as not being worth while because you do not except parimerter factors they've used.... But nothing is said about the out-comes of studies all be it limited, on low carb style diets and there out comes... If you care to take a long look at the research that is available you will find that the researchers do have difficulties gaining the research information that they need to make a conculsion, as there is a high drop out factor over a set period of time that could infact distort the end consultion and result... But no one mention this though...

Only that Br Berstien has been a diabetic for years and it works for him so must be the only way to go etc, etc.... So what about Dr John Walsh then... He's been a diabetic for a similar period of time as Berstien, yet he's got control with using carbs in a diet what society precieves to be a normal healthy way of eating?

My own conculsion is.....

It's not the information or tools that are given to us that causes the problem, the problem is caused by our own abilites to understand the inforamtion and utilises the tools that we've been given causes the problems......
 

hanadr

Expert
Messages
8,157
Dislikes
soaps on telly and people talking about the characters as if they were real.
Jopar.
I'd like references for any studies that show diabetics doing well on a moderate to high carb diet, using only small doses of medication. With minimal "progression" and no complications.
I subscribe to some scientific/ nutrition journals and have NEVER seen a study like this. Not even a small one
As to Bernstein and the tomatoes . It's tomato sauces that he recommends you don't eat, because of the amount of sugar that's usually added in the cooking. A small potion of raw tomato is ok. It's on . page 144 in my copy. ( and tomatoes are only about 3% carb using the European way of determination)
If you read scientific material, it doesn't pay to skim and get half the information
 

jopar

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,222
Robski

Fair and a good question....

Yes I'm what could be concidered to be a low carber, not sure how to phrase this explination so hope that I get it right...

It's the way I've always been since childhood and non-diabetic days, so for me it's not a choice that I have made to seek a answer to a problem... I'm not a saint by no means there are days that I do go above this limited, but depends on what I'm doing and what I fancy to eat... (I actually had to sit and work out my adverage carb content as I might count carbs to assertain my insulin dose, but not my total amount in one day)

I'm all for people utilising carbs to there best advantage... But not on a blanket ban of certain carbs, as the problem could be more with the amount and time of a particular carb consumed rather that it's actual action/impacted on the system...

I am fully aware of some of the implications that could/might cause problems in other underlaying conditions that a person might have apart from having the knowledge to determin what nutrients you might be losing and knowing how to replace these nutrients with something else...

How do I achieve my carb amount, well I decide what I am going to eat, work the carb amount out so that I can adjust my insulin dose accordenly.... There's no I can't have that because it take me over my limit... Yes I'm lucky that I do like veggies, and my cauliflower cheese has always been made with double cream and cheese similar to the recipe that Hanna put into the food forum, but thats they way I prefer it not because it's lower carb than the traditional way of making a culiflower cheese...

But we do need the likes of ally555, to point and get us to think... Is our chosen diet meeting our actual needs apart from the ability to maintain our BG levels, and loss weight (if thats one of our goals) if it doesn't what can we do about it? That's were the experienced low carbers come into play advice with how to meet the needs of finding a suitable source for the required nutrient missing...

When it comes to convincing HP's that low carbing carried out in the right manner may not be a bad thing, then picking on them, refusing to see them isn't very helpfull we need to go with our results and how we achieved them let them see us... But leave them with food for thought that prehaps well lets look into this a bit more, and see how it can be adapted if required to really suit a indiviudal etc...
 

ally5555

Well-Known Member
Messages
850
thank u - for the last post.

I have helped pts to low carb by the way

What i am trying to get you to think is that you have to consider other health issues and not just diabetes.
Oh and all the arguing going on - I have not been involved - only this particular one.

So what are u going to do set up a completely seperate board or just a section on here.
 

jopar

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,222
Hanna

I have actually had a real good look at the internet concerning low carb diets, but all I can really find is as I pointed out very limited studies that had a high fall out rate... which yes I would agree that it isn't helpful with the lack of studies carried out... And I am intreiged by other types of theories out there concerning the best diets to follow and the whys behind that persons reasoning...

I haven't got a problem with Berstien as by comparing his diabetic knowledge is identical to any other professional medical knowledge such as Walsh ect It's the approach that different... I think my problem is based on the dictortorial way of telling you've got to do it this way.... This is how I live so you've got to as well it's the only way of solving your problem angle that I have issuse with...

But even with saying that, for a referance book and a source of information concerning diabetes it properly one of the best I've seen as it does give carbs a clear definition and identitiy to a actual fruit/ veg ect... which a lot of traditional books aren't so good at... And I can easily see why the T2 diabetic even though this work as such wasn't aimed at combatting T2 issuse works for them....

But me as a T1 having looked into Bernstiens method and taking into account what makes my diabetes difficult to maiantain control, I think that personnaly I would have ended up in A&E, and had more trouble with control then I did with injections.... As the margin of error for me personally would have lead to a bigger impact as I was already low on carb intake as 1 unit of insulin can drop my BG by 7-10mmol/l, and when it came to background basal profile, well splittinng injection didn't give me a good basal profile to work from, so calculations ended up a case of looking at my BG, my carb count and hoping that I taken enough factors in before adjusting my dose for injecting, and then cross fingers hope for the best...

As my control issuse's have very little to do with carb amount or carb type or even the reaction it has as such with my body... But a sensitivity issuse I have with insulin itself... And the normal delivery and doseing of insulin injections means that on tighter control and small amounts of carbs to be counter acted, the actual amount of insulin that I require is very small indeed, smaller than the dosage ability and delivery of normal injections hence using a insulin pump, that helps big time with a odd work around or two because it can't quite cope with my small needs...


BY the way, John Walsh who also writes books concerning diabetic control, is also a diabetic himself just like Bernstien... So if we take being a diabetic as the main quailification to give information on how to control your diabetes, then both these authors are not only medicaly quailified in ther field, but also personally quailified so which one is correct? I personally think the one who control method works for you as a individual is the correct one... not the one who says it works for me!
 

ally5555

Well-Known Member
Messages
850
I get a daily email giving me all the latest published research - it makes life easier.

Hana this came today. I had another email a few days ago and I seem to have deleted it i- it had details of a study using around 180g cHO and a lower protein intake - cant remember exact amount but that produced good results. I ll have a look later see if i can find it.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)



Restricted-carbohydrate diets in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis
Kirk J K, Graves D E, Craven T E, Lipkin E W, Austin M, Margolis K L

CRD summary The authors concluded that short-term restricted-carbohydrate diets may improve glycaemic control and triglyceride levels in patients with type 2 diabetes, but the long-term effects are unclear. These conclusions appear to be supported by the data presented, but the lack of information about study quality or review methods makes it hard to assess their reliability.

Authors' objectives To evaluate the effect of a restricted-carbohydrate diet on glycaemia, weight and blood lipids in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Searching PubMed, CINAHL, the Combined Health Information Database, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from 1980 to April 2006; the search terms were reported. The references of relevant reviews and studies checked. The search was limited to studies, reported in English and completed in the USA or Canada.

Study selection The participants in eligible studies were adult in-patients or out-patients with type 2 diabetes, aged 19 years and older. Studies including participants without diabetes were required to report separate results for the two populations. Studies of pre-diabetes and gestational diabetes were excluded. The mean age of the participants in the included studies was 57 (± 6) years (range: 48 to 66). Some studies included participants who were not taking medication for diabetes, while in other studies some participants were taking oral hypoglycaemic agents or insulin (in some cases tailored to blood glucose level). Eligible studies compared a restricted-carbohydrate diet with a non-restricted-carbohydrate diet (controls). A restricted-carbohydrate diet was defined as a diet supplying 45% or less of its total calories from carbohydrates. Eligible studies could use either unregulated or regulated food sources. The diets in the included studies varied from in-patient feeding regimes to outpatient self-selected diets. In the intervention arms, carbohydrates supplied a mean of 29% (± 14) of total daily calories (range: 4 to 45%), while in the control arms, carbohydrates supplied a mean of 55% (± 8) of total daily calories (range: 40 to 70%). The proportion of daily calories supplied by protein and fats ranged from 15 to 45% and 30 to 59%, respectively, in the intervention arms, and from 15 to 20% and 10 to 42% in the control arms. Some studies adjusted protein and fat intake in the intervention arm and/or were designed to be isocaloric (i.e. carbohydrates, protein and fat supplied equal quantities of calories). The duration of the interventions ranged from 1 to 26 weeks. The participants were advised to continue usual physical activities during the study. Eligible studies were required to report one or more of the following criteria: weight loss; blood levels of triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol; and glycaemic control, measured by haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or fasting glucose. Dietary compliance was measured by food records, recall and interview, laboratory testing and the monitoring of unused food portions. There were no specific inclusion criteria with respect to the study design.

The authors did not state how the papers were selected for the review, or how many reviewers performed the selection.

Validity assessment The authors did not state that they assessed validity.

Data extraction All data were continuous. Mean changes from baseline (with standard errors) and percentage changes from baseline were reported. Where the standard error of the mean change was not reported in the primary study, the upper limit was estimated from the standard deviations of the before and after measures. For crossover or paired designs, the data for each phase were extracted separately, provided that baseline values for each phase were available.

The authors did not state how the data were extracted for the review, or how many reviewers performed the data extraction

Methods of synthesis The data were pooled in inverse-variance meta-regression analysis, using hierarchical linear mixed models. The percentage reduction in the outcome was used as the dependent variable. Regression models controlled for correlation between observations within the same study and for differences between studies in the duration of the intervention. The restricted maximum likelihood method was used to estimate model parameters, and denominator degrees of freedom were calculated using the method of Berkey et al. (see Other Publications of Related Interest). Some clinical differences between the studies were investigated in single-covariate regression analyses. Further analyses were conducted to investigate the effect of weight change on glycaemia and lipid outcomes.

Results of the review Thirteen studies (n=263) were included: 6 crossover randomised controlled trials (RCTs; n=91), 3 parallel-group RCTs (n=96), 1 non-randomised controlled trial (n=17) and 3 before-and-after studies (n=59).

The studies were small and short term. Study settings, participants and interventions varied widely. Participant drop-out rates were high and some primary studies reported that long-term dietary adherence was poor.

An investigation of clinical differences between the studies found no significant relationship between any of the outcomes and participant age, inclusion of participants on insulin, or duration of dietary intervention.

Glycaemia.

All 12 studies (n=251) that measured this blood glucose reported a greater reduction in the intervention group than in controls, and 9 studies (out of 11; n=214) that reported HbA1c reported a lower (or more greatly reduced) level in the intervention group. When studies were pooled there was a significantly greater mean reduction in the intervention group in both fasting blood glucose (p=0.013) and HbA1c (p=0.013) than in controls. Interventions with lower levels of carbohydrates resulted in greater reductions in both measures. Regression analyses found that weight change attenuated the effect of the reduction in glycaemia associated with a restricted-carbohydrate diet, though the association remained statistically significant when controlling for weight.

Lipids.

When pooling studies that reported this outcome, there was a strong and statistically significant association between a restricted-carbohydrate diet and lower triglyceride levels (11 studies, n=183; p<0.001). Controlling for weight change did not substantially alter this finding. No statistically significant association was found between the intervention and total, low-density lipoprotein or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Weight change (6 studies, n=139, excluding isocaloric studies).

No statistically significant association was found between the carbohydrate content of the diet and weight.

Authors' conclusions Short term use of a restricted-carbohydrate diet may improve glycaemic control and triglyceride levels in patients with type 2 diabetes, but the long-term safety and sustainability of such diets is unclear.

CRD commentary The review objective and inclusion criteria were clear. Relevant sources were searched for literature, but the search string was apparently limited to two Medical Subject Headings, which means that some studies might have been missed. It is unclear whether steps were taken to minimise the risk of error and bias in the review process, such as having more than one reviewer independently select studies and extract the data and there is no indication that study quality was systematically assessed. This makes it difficult to assess the reliability of the findings, especially as the authors noted that there were high losses to follow-up in the primary studies. The methods used to pool the data appear appropriate. The primary studies were heterogeneous, especially with respect to the intensity and duration of the interventions. This was appropriately addressed by regression analyses, although the authors noted that only a limited number of variables could be analysed because of the small number of studies. The authors' conclusions appear to be supported by the data presented, but the lack of information about review methods and study quality makes it hard to assess their reliability.

Implications of the review for practice and research Practice: The authors stated that short-term use of a restricted-carbohydrate diet may improve glycaemic control and triglyceride levels in patients with type 2 diabetes. Moderate carbohydrate restriction may also provide some benefit. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend restricted-carbohydrate diets in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Research: The authors stated that RCTs are required to determine the effect of restricted-carbohydrate diets on cardiovascular risk factors (e.g. inflammation, endothelial dysfunction), long-term cardiovascular outcomes and overall safety in patients with type 2 diabetes. Studies should examine not only the effect of specific fats and carbohydrates but also the effect of increased fat or protein intake.

Funding National Institutes of Health, grant numbers HC95180, DK35816 and HC95180.

Bibliographic detail Kirk J K, Graves D E, Craven T E, Lipkin E W, Austin M, Margolis K L. Restricted-carbohydrate diets in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2008; 108(1): 91-100
Link to Pubmed record 18155993
Other publications of related interest Berkey CS, Houglin DC, Mosteller F, Colditz GA. A random-effects regression model for meta-analysis. Stat Med 1995;14:395-411.

Subject index terms status Subject indexing assigned by NLM
Subject index terms Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 /blood /diet therapy; Diet, Carbohydrate-Restricted; Dietary Carbohydrates /administration & dosage /metabolism; Female; Hemoglobin A, Glycosylated /metabolism; Humans; Lipid Metabolism /drug effects; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety; Treatment Outcome
Accession number 12008009263
Database entry date 3 November 2008
Record status This record is a structured abstract written by CRD reviewers. The original has met a set of quality criteria. Since September 1996 abstracts have been sent to authors for comment. Additional factual information is incorporated into the record. Noted as [A:....].


Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)
Produced by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
 

sugarless sue

Master
Messages
10,098
Dislikes
Rude people! Not being able to do the things I want to do.
Yes it benefits type 2's.The problem is that not enough time has elapsed for anyone to know the long term benefits/complications of low carbing.That's why they keep coming up with no long term data.From the professional point of view,without the long term research they will not commit themselves for the simple reason that ,in years to come,if they do find complications of low carbing they could face massive law-suits similar to the cigarette industry if they recommend low carbing before research evidence is available.
I'm in my 50's,I don't expect too many more years so ,for me,long term complications are academic.I want to be as healthy as possible for the years I have left.However for a young diabetic with years to come the out look would be vastly different.
(and ,yes I am still going to prune this thread,when I wake up properly!!)
 

tubolard

Well-Known Member
Messages
575
Dislikes
Fasteddie; Richard K Bernstein; William S. Atkins; Rosemary Bloody Conley;
Eddie,

1. In short No. I suspect though they are trying to say the same thing as the ADA
2. God alone knows, do you know any of them?
3. I think both spellings are perfectly valid, glycaemic and glycemic.

Regards, Tubs.
 

jopar

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,222
It's sort of saying that in the short term a low carb diet was benifical for a T2 diabetic for those that had stayed the course or should I say the study period....

No study had been carried out for long enough to prove or disprove what effects/benefits over a long period of time would have/ not have for some-one...

With any study into whether something basically works or not... Part of the equation would be, whether people continuled with the parimeters set or not, if people drop out then how to you quanitify the no-exsisting data that can't be collected?

Any thing can only be benefical for the masses if the masses will adtoped and follow it... If they don't then it can only be offered as a option for those that choose to do say....
 

tubolard

Well-Known Member
Messages
575
Dislikes
Fasteddie; Richard K Bernstein; William S. Atkins; Rosemary Bloody Conley;
Eddie,

Applying Boolean logic. The first sentence is true for low carb diets and type 2s, the second sentence is false for low carb diets and type 2s therefore the conclusion is that low carb diets do not help type 2s. Which is why I said no. Having said that I think they are being deliberately obtuse. This is similar to the ADA line, which says yes low carb is good for you, but only for a year.

It would have been clearer and more accurate, perhaps, if they had said "However, there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend long term restricted-carbohydrate diets in patients with type 2 diabetes."

Regards, Tubs.
 

witan

Well-Known Member
Messages
99
It sounds like a good use of the new low carb forum would be to get information on who's been doing it, for how long, and what if any side effects have occured - could make a good report to submit to the sceptics.

But i'm sure as sugarless sue says it will take many years for the establishment to feel they can take the risk of endorsing it.

I think Glycaemic has a diptholm in, that's where the a and e overlap, if your computer hasn't got the right character set (or you're an American) you can just put an e.
 

sugarless sue

Master
Messages
10,098
Dislikes
Rude people! Not being able to do the things I want to do.
This thread will be moved,sometime tonight ,to be pruned and cleaned up.It will return!!
 

IanD

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,429
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
Dislikes
Carbohydrates
Ally,

What that study shows is that carb reduction benefits T2s at least for the duration of the study. Most of us who have reduced carb would agree with that conclusion, & you have repeatedly advised carb control.

Presumably NONE of the subjects suffered adversely, or that would have been stated.

It is well known that higher BGs are the cause of all the health hazards for diabetics.

The report caveat is simply that they do have have data for long term carb reduction.

If short term data indicates benefits, surely they should pursue long term data.

Rather than therefore put the report in the back of the filing cabinet, "they" should set about gathering long term data to see if there are any long term negatives.

An alternative diabetic diet should be drawn up based around restricted carbs, taking into account the possible restriction of vitamins & minerals, & excess protein & fat, so that diabetics have a professionally guided option for BS control.

Such a diet should indicate side effects & counter indications that should be reported to the HPs.

If vitamin/mineral deficits are expected, there are enough diabetics for the manufacturers to justify a diabetic multi v/m supplement. I take the standard supplement anyway.

For me, the short term effect has been restoration of my active life. That has wonderfully corrected the long term effect of the NHS diabetes diet that was leading to neuropathy & disablement. i.e. the end of my active life.
 

Katharine

Well-Known Member
Messages
819
Jopar wrote:

But we do need the likes of ally555, to point and get us to think... Is our chosen diet meeting our actual needs apart from the ability to maintain our BG levels, and loss weight (if thats one of our goals) if it doesn't what can we do about it? That's were the experienced low carbers come into play advice with how to meet the needs of finding a suitable source for the required nutrient missing...


Ally replied:

thank u - for the last post.

I have helped pts to low carb by the way


Ally, I think that Jopar has a good point here and from your reply you seem to agree with her.
Is this correct?

If so, I think that you could usefully use your computer to analyse various diets. You could then report back to the forum what you have discovered about potential micro nutrient / mineral deficiencies. You could also list natural foods that would best fill that nutrient deficit. You could also list whether some other sort of supplement would be required and in what sort of quantities for say a 60kg woman or a 75kg man.

In order to protect you from potential worries about giving advice directly to individual cyber-patients we could design a format that would prevent this. I do have a methodology in mind but won't go further than this till you respond to this post to say whether you would be happy to do this.

I could see that this system could:

1. Use your expertise.
2. Give new information to diabetics that they would otherwise not have access to.
3. Keep you safe.
4. Resolve the frustration of both sides of the carb debate.

Are you up for the party?
 

Trinkwasser

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,468
graham64 said:
[
Hi Trink,
I can give you the results of my last Chol check, seeing I was on simvastatin (had to come off due to severe side effects) that played a part in the results.
Total Chol 4.0
Trigs 0.79
HDL 1.65
LDL 1.99
Ratio 2.4

Regards Graham

So were we separated at birth or what? <G>

You got me beat on the HDL, but I *have* had my trigs down to 0.44

The important ratio is trigs/HDL which should be below 1.2 or 1.3 (I forget, I'm so used to dealing with Yanks and their different numbers) anyway yours is below 0.5 so I predict you will live forever

Can you have negative insulin resistance? <G>
 

Trinkwasser

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,468
Jem said:
Ally - the reason many people on here are frustrated with dietetics units is that the advice we've received from them has made us worse. And being diabetic is not fun or easy so having it made worse is not something we really need ... on top of the condition itself. I don't think you need to take it too personally ... if you can accept that many people on this forum have had their lives and health VASTLY improved by the advice received on low-carbing found here then I think we have a halfway house.

Imagine it this way (just an imaginary scenario): let's say you've just found a cure for some horrid disease you've contracted and nobody in the ministry of diseases will accept it's a cure, let alone admit it's helped you personally, not only that, but they go around telling everyone with the same horrid disease to do the opposite of the cure - advising them in a way you KNOW will make them fall foul of the horrid disease sooner and more painfully - then you too would be angry with anyone giving that advice, or anyone connected with the office of those people giving the advice.

EXACTLY!!!

A few medical professionals both here and in the States have now seen the light, and the number is slowly increasing.

It's the irony that it's supposed to be *patients* who are in denial but with diabetes it's usually the Authorities, be they doctors or dieticians, or dietitians.
 

Trinkwasser

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,468
ally5555 said:
robski - i am not trying to antagonise anyone just make them think.

Look at the lipids I just posted.

Look at the lipids Graham just posted.

I await your comments with interest.
 

Trinkwasser

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,468
fasteddie said:
Hi all

Can any genius explain this paragraph to me.

It states that "short term restricted-carbohydrate diet may improve glycaemic control and triglyceride levels in patients with type 2 diabetes", then in the next sentence. "However, there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend restricted-carbohydrate diets in patients with type 2 diabetes."

It works - but don't do it.

HTH ;)

Glycaemic is the UK spelling