How irresposible are the current diet NHS guidelines for T2 and pre diabetics?

[lucylocket61]

Some of them must be really frustrated but having said that, I did all the work and I want a Sticker!

 

[Guzzler]

Yay! Thank you!

 

[derry60]

All I know is that I ate all of the healthy foods and my BG levels were higher than they should be. I could not lose weight for love nor money, even with the small portions. The diet was not letting me lose weight no matter what. I felt tired and sluggish all of the time. Now I have lost weight my BG levels are consistently lower and it is all due to the low carb diet. I do not eat animal fat but will now eat full-fat cheese butter and cream. I also used to eat quite a lot of fruits, now it is just berries with cream.Slow releasing foods did not do me any good did it or anybody on this forum otherwise we would not be here. I was eating diet everything and it made me ill. I loved couscous brown rice brown nutty bread brown pasta all the foods that are supposed to be good for me. I was also lucky to have the nurse tell me that she was on a low carb diet also and felt great about it. She went on to tell me how much weight she had lost.To be honest, when I first come to this site I thought that you were all mad eating high fat and the diet that you were on. How wrong was I

 

[archersuz]

I went on a DESMOND course yesterday. It was explained that bg over 48 was diabetes, but the acceptable bg range for a diabetic is 48 to 57 (or 59 I can't remember). I was soooo shocked that I just blurted out "but surely one would get it lower than 48 if one could???" The reply was that some diabetics in their surgeries have lowered their bg to lower than 48 and to go for it if wanted to, but I could see the look on their faces - they don't really believe it's possible or necessary.

 

[AloeSvea]

What you say @archersuz is disturbing indeed. I think it is completely irresponsible indeed not to talk about T2 as a metabolic dysfunction that can and should be treated metabolically. (Such a fancy way to talk about diet and activity!) But we do seem to be a way off from that. Hopefully for we humans' health we are not far from where it is standard procedure to treat it so, and that it is both necessary and possible to treat T2D, and diabetes generally, with dietary measures. (In my country NZ - the official emphasis is on taking note of the glycemic index of food rather than changing diet per se).

 

[Grateful]

I went on a DESMOND course yesterday. It was explained that bg over 48 was diabetes, but the acceptable bg range for a diabetic is 48 to 57 (or 59 I can't remember). I was soooo shocked that I just blurted out "but surely one would get it lower than 48 if one could???" The reply was that some diabetics in their surgeries have lowered their bg to lower than 48 and to go for it if wanted to, but I could see the look on their faces - they don't really believe it's possible or necessary.

Here in America the official American Diabetes Association treatment goal for T2D is to get A1C down to 7.0% (53) or better. My doctor told me that if I could meet that target with diet/exercise, he would not prescribe any drugs. He specifically recommended a low-carb diet and I followed his advice.

When I got it down to 5.5% (37) within two months he scribbled "Excellent job!" on the test sheet that he mailed me. When I got it down to 4.9% (30) at six months from diagnosis, he scribbled "Wow!!!" on the test sheet.

The experiences being related in this thread make me shudder. The ADA (which I suppose is the U.S. equivalent of the NHS as far as setting the rules for T2D treatment goes) does not advocate the low-carb route as the first line of defense. Rather, it wants a "healthy diet" that sounds awfully like the UK "eatwell" plate. About the only thing you can say for the ADA is that it is not actively hostile to low-carb. It admits that this approach works for some people, but tends to imply it is a fringe treatment (at least that is the message I am getting from their magazine, to which I subscribe).

So ending up with my GP who actually advocates the low-carb route was pretty lucky. I assume that most US doctors follow the ADA guidelines and that most American T2D patients end up in the same boat as UK ones.

Edited to add: Sorry to keep boring everyone with my story. As another poster has said (in another thread I think), this forum is full of people being really boring about how they controlled T2D with diet!!!

 

[Mbaker]

Here in America the official American Diabetes Association treatment goal for T2D is to get A1C down to 7.0% (53) or better. My doctor told me that if I could meet that target with diet/exercise, he would not prescribe any drugs. He specifically recommended a low-carb diet and I followed his advice.

When I got it down to 5.5% (37) within two months he scribbled "Excellent job!" on the test sheet that he mailed me. When I got it down to 4.9% (30) at six months from diagnosis, he scribbled "Wow!!!" on the test sheet.

The experiences being related in this thread make me shudder. The ADA (which I suppose is the U.S. equivalent of the NHS as far as setting the rules for T2D treatment goes) does not advocate the low-carb route as the first line of defense. Rather, it wants a "healthy diet" that sounds awfully like the UK "eatwell" plate. About the only thing you can say for the ADA is that it is not actively hostile to low-carb. It admits that this approach works for some people, but tends to imply it is a fringe treatment (at least that is the message I am getting from their magazine, to which I subscribe).

So ending up with my GP who actually advocates the low-carb route was pretty lucky. I assume that most US doctors follow the ADA guidelines and that most American T2D patients end up in the same boat as UK ones.

Edited to add: Sorry to keep boring everyone with my story. As another poster has said (in another thread I think), this forum is full of people being really boring about how they controlled T2D with diet!!!

On the contrary, the more stories the better and very interesting the comparatives between the US and UK.

 

[Alexandra100]

On the contrary, the more stories the better and very interesting the comparatives between the US and UK.

Indeed. We are a tiny minority in a society which does its best to stuff us full of carbs, like those poor french geese. The more reminders we can muster that there is another way, the better.

 

[caroline_92]

Being t1, I do not fully understand the low carb/t2 thing. So please educate me before I write something (else) stupid.
Why is there not much discussion/attention to low GI on this forum?

I think the GI concept is deeply flawed and has never really been accepted by the enlightened dieticians. Normal (non diabetics nor glucose intolerant) people are fed 50g of a single ingredient eg bananas and their blood sugar measured after 2 hours.

If you follow the GI approach then Snickers bar with a GI of 55 are good and pizza is another low GI food! The key thing that matters for those looking to control their blood sugar is the total carb content of their meals and how that individuals blood sugar responds to eating this food, when eaten normally with other foods. Best to ignore GI in my opinon and focus on carb content....

 

[woodywhippet61]

I went on a DESMOND course yesterday. It was explained that bg over 48 was diabetes, but the acceptable bg range for a diabetic is 48 to 57 (or 59 I can't remember). I was soooo shocked that I just blurted out "but surely one would get it lower than 48 if one could???" The reply was that some diabetics in their surgeries have lowered their bg to lower than 48 and to go for it if wanted to, but I could see the look on their faces - they don't really believe it's possible or necessary.

Arrgh!

 

[kokhongw]

Until NHS, ADA, IDF etc accepts that T2D is predominantly a condition of high circulating insulin (neatly pointed out by @CherryAA ) and the solution is to lower it, the recommended dietary and treatment guidelines will do little to improve the condition.

Repeatedly we have seen and experienced how insulin lowering diet/lifestyle normalize both glucose/insulin levels within weeks not years, that is why the guideline is a tragedy of missed opportunities...

 

[Resurgam]

At the second diabetes education session I went to there was a couple there, and the man was really ill - I tried to get over the idea of low carb, but the 'educator' was constantly overriding what I said about eating low carb, and delayed me leaving to be weighed, so I could not speak to them on the way out.
They were not there on the third session, and I am not optimistic about the outcome for the man - I had taken along a book on the Atkins diet to give to the wife, in the hope of it being some help.
Where I go to band practice on Mondays is the communal room of an assisted living complex. One of the people there is a diabetic who has lost his legs and eyesight due to poor control - he happily eats the foods provided, all high carb but low sugar, as advised by the dietician. Sometimes he is brought down to listen to us, in his wheelchair.

 

[CherryAA]

Until NHS, ADA, IDF etc accepts that T2D is predominantly a condition of high circulating insulin (neatly pointed out by @CherryAA ) and the solution is to lower it, the recommended dietary and treatment guidelines will do little to improve the condition.

Repeatedly we have seen and experienced how insulin lowering diet/lifestyle normalize both glucose/insulin levels within weeks not years, that is why the guideline is a tragedy of missed opportunities...

Study after study shows that high insulin is present in more and more people at a very early age, we do our children a disservice by not recognising that that is the illness and treating it as soon as it presents itself with a changed diet . I have come to believe that T2 is not actually a disease at all, hyperinsulinaemia is the disease - obesity, T2 and many other diseases are merely manifestations of it as we step along the path that is inexorable for most of us. The reason is that our food content as advised by governments is incorrect and our professional bodies have an inability to face up to the fact that we have been conducting an enormous experiment on the human race which has failed and must be changed.

 

[Guzzler]

I'm not sure that 'experiment' is the right word but I struggle to find an alternative.
I definitely think that the root causes of today's pandemic are greed and ego. Greed by Big Food and ego by those who would protect their own reputations by being intransigent in the face of real evidence that counters their own beliefs. Lobbyists and academics have an awful lot to answer for. The back room tactics of the Tobacco companies are well known today but it still took decades for governments to finally accept that something had to be done to reverse the trend in smoking. The same thing is now (tentavively) being expressed with an effort taken recently to lower the sugar content of some foodstuffs but you can be sure of one thing, the industry will keep fighting back. Big Food, Big Pharma and under the counter tactics are killing us.

 

[woodywhippet61]

Edited to add: Sorry to keep boring everyone with my story. As another poster has said (in another thread I think), this forum is full of people being really boring about how they controlled T2D with diet!!!

If I remember correctly that comment and who made it I'd guess that it was a tongue in cheek comment.

As it's a fact that some of us, like yourself, have controlled their T2 with diet and why shouldn't we say so and continue to say so. If it helps just one other T2............

 

[Dr Snoddy]

The insulin index is also revealing. This is an index of foods and how much insulin is needed to respond.
Some of the foods that are lowish GI are quite high on the insulin index.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/5/984/T1.expansion.html
https://public.tableau.com/profile/christoffer.green#!/vizhome/InsulinogenicFoodData/Dashboard1

 

[Dr Snoddy]

I went on a DESMOND course yesterday. It was explained that bg over 48 was diabetes, but the acceptable bg range for a diabetic is 48 to 57 (or 59 I can't remember). I was soooo shocked that I just blurted out "but surely one would get it lower than 48 if one could???" The reply was that some diabetics in their surgeries have lowered their bg to lower than 48 and to go for it if wanted to, but I could see the look on their faces - they don't really believe it's possible or necessary.

I had a similar experience. Original HbA1c 104, lo-carb diet courtesy of this site, HbA1c 36 6 months later. DN says 'congratulations but you do realise that you can afford to have HbA1c readings in the 40s'!!!!!!! My confidence in her advice plummeted.

 

[Dr Snoddy]

Great sites, much appreciated.

 

[Guzzler]

I had a similar experience. Original HbA1c 104, lo-carb diet courtesy of this site, HbA1c 36 6 months later. DN says 'congratulations but you do realise that you can afford to have HbA1c readings in the 40s'!!!!!!! My confidence in her advice plummeted.

Great numbers!

 

[MikeTurin]

I went on a DESMOND course yesterday. It was explained that bg over 48 was diabetes, but the acceptable bg range for a diabetic is 48 to 57 (or 59 I can't remember). I was soooo shocked that I just blurted out "but surely one would get it lower than 48 if one could???" The reply was that some diabetics in their surgeries have lowered their bg to lower than 48 and to go for it if wanted to, but I could see the look on their faces - they don't really believe it's possible or necessary.

From what I know an HBa1C under 20 could be an indicator of starvation, anaemia or liver dysfunction.
The target range for a T2 is under 53, but if one goes under 48, the non diabetic upper limit it's good.
Going to 15 could raise some eyebrows and I suspect that redo the exam adding transaminases and complete blood count.