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

I'm getting a bit cross with Dr Trudi Deakin

N

nancyb

Well-Known Member
Messages
136
Type of diabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
Re Dr Deakin's article in the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2911642/My-diet-82-FAT

Dr Deakin, advisor to NHS trainers, now seems to be advocating a diet which is 80% fat.

Here is Trudi Deakin's typical daily menu:
BREAKFAST: Three eggs cooked in the microwave with butter and cheese, like a souffle, served with oily fish - smoked salmon or mackerel - or avocado.

LUNCH:A bowl of berries with double cream or a homemade walnut scone, made with ground almonds rather than flour, served with double cream

DINNER: Meat or fish with a serving of vegetables cooked in butter

QUESTION 1: Would three eggs not bung you up? Is 3 eggs plus some fish really necessary for breakfast? 1 egg and a bit of bacon and mushrooms is enough for me
QUESTION 2: Is a bowl of berries and cream a suitable or practical lunch for most people?
QUESTION 3: Is she advocating no carbs rather than low carbs? In my opinion, even us diabetics need some carbs in our diet
QUESTION 4: Would you get plentiful and varied nutrients from a diet that is 80% fat?

Remember, this woman runs training courses for the NHS. She has been advocating high carb low fat diets for years. Now she has seen the light but is swinging too far to the other extreme. Are we going to see diabetes and obesity replaced by colorectal cancer and malnutrition?
 
1) Bung you up? Not everyone. 3 eggs plus fish necessary? It's totally down to the individual.
2) I didn't think that she was recommending it, just saying that it's what she ate, I've had yoghurt and berries before now, especially after a 'decent' breakfast.
3) If she is advocating no carbs, it isn't how I interpreted what she was saying.
4) The Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) recommend no more than 35% of our calories being from fats. Then there are certain peoples in the really cold bits of Canada and Alaska along with certain African tribes who consume an awful lot more because that's all there is. Would we get enough nutrients is a good question, the answer put simply is yes, there's plenty of scientific papers to Google.
That's a big jump in assumptions. From what I've read it's not so much the high fat but the amount of meat containing the fat that scientists believe is the link to cancer. Malnutrition? The Eskimos seem OK.
 
As long as the cut of meat is unprocessed, I can't see anything notably carcinogenic here.

Whereas the bacon typically contains nitrates and nitrates, which have been linked with increased rates of colorectal cancers. As others may point out, just because something has been linked doesn't mean its been proven but it's enough to make me choose processed meats (inc bacon and sausages) only very occasionally (less than once a month).

Ed
 
Some huge assumptions there Nancy. Cancer and malnutrition ? Wow ! Where does this come from ? Her typical daily menu sounds amazing. Still, nobody is telling you to vary from your own.
 
I still don't see how that menu (which looks fine to me) comprises 80% fat.
 
In my humble opinion, the lack of fibre in an 80% fat diet, plus the eggs could lead to constipation, hence bowel problems.
I don't see a balance of foods of sufficient quantity to provide our daily needs of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants . .
Many people would not be able to digest a diet of 80% fat; in addition a large proportion of the world's population do not have the necessary enzymes to digest lactose.
I don't think food production at a rate of 80% fat is sustainable
 
Three eggs a day, every day, would bung me up.
So I would either vary my breakfast, or I would add veg to it.

Other than that menu looks, to me, rather delicious. And quite similar to what I've been eating for much of the last year - I've never felt better. And I'm slowly losing weight. Which delights and astonishes me.

Regarding the 80% fat queries - remember, this isn't 80% by volume. It is 80% by energy.
Anyone can do that, if they add enough fat to the plate, and portion sizes are not mentioned.
 
@nancyb
Dr Trudi Deakin quoted an instance of her own diet, she didn't say YOU MUST EAT 3 EGGS etc
I could happily eat that daily menu, but I (like her probably) would have variety and would eat the necessary micronutrients over a week on average. I don't think anybodies one day menu would provide ALL their micronutrient requirements, especially after being filtered via a tabloid newspaper article.
 

This lady is a dietician. She must know more than most which foods provide which nutrients. I can't see her eating or recommending others to eat foods that would lead to malnutrition or vitamin/mineral deficiencies.
 
To be fair, the content of that menu is not particularly far removed from what I eat, just that I supplement with tons of veg. That seems to keep me regular enough!
 
I think it is great when someone basically admits they were wrong in the first place. It's those that keep sticking to outdated science and won't admit they were wrong that are the problem.
 
Three eggs with oily fish cooked in butter for breakfast I think you would have to have a strong stomach for that. I love eggs but never have more than one at time.and I don't cook with butter just have a knob on my veggies so yes that would all be a bit to much fat for me
 
Can none of you see that it is just an example of a meal. That doesn't mean she has it every day, nor does it mean she is telling others to eat 3 eggs and fish for breakfast. We all eat a varied diet. If I told you what I had for breakfast today, does that mean I have it every day and that I am promoting it to others ? Of course not.
 




Did you ever question her diet before she was advocating LCHF? Or devote this much time debating it?
 
douglas99 said:
Nope.
Click to expand...




I suspect if she had changed her opinion towards the eat well plate you would be defending her instead of calling her a hypocrite?

It seems to me that because she is suggesting lchf, this is to those who don't like that way of eating an excuse to scrutinise her every word in a bid to discredit her

listen to her or don't its up to you, but why is her opinion so offensive to you?
 
To be fair, if she was enthusiastically promoting the Eat Well, I would probably be scrutinising and discrediting her.

Actually, it's more likely I would have dismissed her as an idiot and got so bored with the thread that I stopped reading it.

But anyway, we all defend our entrenched positions, if we are personally convinced of their validity. But that doesn't make us right.
 
But she apparently up to now has been and I've never heard of her before now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…