Oldvatr
Expert
Can I suggest we share this link on our social media pages such as Facebook or twitter.
Can I suggest we share this link on our social media pages such as Facebook or twitter.--------->
I sort of want to quote the Guardian article from an earlier post verbatim here, but it's a long read (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin) and basically posits that our high-and-climbing incidents of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and various other health-service-destroying nasties are a result of bad information that was taken up by those in authority and handed out to the masses.
------->
.
Thanks @Oldvatr got it all now.https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-carbohydrates-and-health-report
If not getting this, then a search on sacn in theur searchbar will bring up a list of goodies.
There is also a report on sugar
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacns-sugars-and-health-recommendations-why-5
Edit to add:
Prof Ian Macdonald who was instrumental in the sacn reports is a diabetes specialist (apparently)
http://www.thesugarreductionsummit.co.uk/speaker/prof-ian-macdonald/
It's an interesting perspective, @Winnie53 , and I'm grateful for your reply.
I, too, spent the last 5 years volunteering in a non-profit (though, luckily, fundraising was but a fraction of our time - annual monitoring was a far bigger bugbear) and the thing I learned from the people we worked for - families with disabled children - is that if you give people the right information, they'll generally follow it. And the more authority that information has when it's delivered, the faster that process will be.
I sort of want to quote the Guardian article from an earlier post verbatim here, but it's a long read (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin) and basically posits that our high-and-climbing incidents of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and various other health-service-destroying nasties are a result of bad information that was taken up by those in authority and handed out to the masses.
There is a particularly interesting (and relevant) paragraph:
The article goes on to demonstrate how the "Low fat, more carbs!" lobby gained control and, as a direct result of that powerfully-delivered advice, people followed it.
I have no doubt at all that if the advice changed suddenly to reflect actual nutritional science, people would manage it. And even if all people didn't (and of course they won't), at least the burden on our essential services would diminish.
I would say that the majority of diabetics (reading about the experiences of so many people when it comes to engaging with health services on this site alone) don't understand why they need to. And if they do, they're not then given the (relatively cheap compared to amputation, dialysis and transplant alternatives) tools to see the effect giving that stuff up has upon them.
I swear, if every T2 upon diagnosis was given a meter and the suggestion that they cut out carbs for 2 weeks - even without the tricky scientific information - we'd not even be having this conversation. Honestly, direct them to this website, prepare and care for them through any ketoflu they experience and, boom, you've got a lifer.
It's not about punishing lifestyles, or even statutory services who followed advice given them by "nutritional experts" (again, the article clearly demonstrates the bias and fashionability of nutritional "science" and how much of what we're told isn't based upon any science at all.), but giving people half a chance to stop poisoning themselves and their families and choose a lifestyle based upon honestly-gained information. If they're given the facts and still choose to eat carbs, that's their affair, and we live in a country that allows personal choice, whether good or bad. But as it is, LCHF is dismissed as a faddy or crash diet by the NHS and the information that people really need to heal themselves isn't getting out there. They/we have no choice at all.
I think this forum very clearly demonstrates that people, when given the correct information in a format they can understand, will try to do the "right" thing. And, sure, there's personal choice and the dopamine feedback loop and decades of imprinted nutritional advice to take into account, but everyone here has overcome that and reduced their personal risk of complication, so why shouldn't we expect that anyone can? Are we saying people on this site are super-special? No. We're all just people.
But currently, it's not even being talked about. There is absolutely zero discussion of another way to manage diabetes. Not in the press, not on TV, not on the NHS website, nowhere. And yet the answer to the imminent NHS crisis is carb reduction! The impact that carbs have on your body - from birth - has been and continues to be carefully hidden until some maverick like Dr Unwin or John Ludkin come along and risk their careers and reputations trying to drag that truth into the light.
That's not science. And that's not supply-and-demand. That's an industrial drug ring, working hard and paying good money to ensure we get addicted as infants and stay addicted to what they're peddling. We've been raised to be addicts, and that's not a clear and unbaised choice that anyone got to make. While I generally don't believe in "evil", I genuinely don't believe these companies have the interests of their consumers at heart. And I'm not saying "Sue them out of spite!" but "Sue them because they've been culpable for 40 years for a conspiracy that is still causing millions of deaths and money is the only language they speak".
I really admire your support group endeavour, Winnie. I wish you every luck (and whatever assistance I can offer from a distance). But you're swimming against the tide in a pool filled with people who just don't understand how the information they've been given all their lives is wrong. The authority of the message is too great to easily overcome; by the time you're facing life-changing complications, I guess you figure you've got not much else to lose, so why not think about low carbing?
But until this very simple, highly effective, drug-free solution is given the time of day, nothing is going to change. And yes, I think we should all be angry about that.
@Oldvatr : That sugar report absolutely blows my mind, too. It even acknowledges that, though carbs are made of sugar (excepting dietary fibre) it's only going to focus on "free sugars":
So it's not actually concentrating on - or even looking at - carbs at all, but sliding past the starches (which it acknowledges are also made of sugars, but they're not "free" sugars and so, for the purpose of this particular review, don't count) and looking only at the refined white stuff.
Also, they don't actually list the research papers and studies they included in the literature they have based their review upon. So you can't tell whether they selected their source material with or without bias, though one paragraph ion particular sort of gives the game away:
Sorry. Went on a bit of a rant at this. Looks like my son is going to get a diagnosis of T2 soon, too. And all because I followed nutritional advice. People should be angry about this. We've been lied to and literally poisoned for years - even after the people who came up with the advice in the first place admitted that it was probably incorrect (also in the Guardian article).
@SockFiddler I do understand, but it's not just the carbs that's making us fat and/or diabetic. It's also the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) including plastics, herbicides, pesticides, and other toxins, also heavy metals that are now in our foods. It took me a year to find healthy sources of protein, carbs, and fats that are comparable to the foods my grandparents ate.
I also think perhaps your underestimating the addictive nature of highly processed carbohydrates. I've been on the LCHF diet for two and a half years now. It's challenging to stay off the sugary and starchy foods. I'm reasonably successful, but many of our group members are still struggling. I think what you're seeing here on this forum is not reflective of the broader diabetic community or most of the diabetic websites and forums, that's why I'm here.
I think we each need to choose our own path, and yours will be different from mine, but our first priority needs to be our personal health.
Can I suggest we share this link on our social media pages such as Facebook or twitter.
I've done a few posts on this subject - in particular finding your local butchers and getting hold of chicken carcasses and bones for broth. Most butchers are clued into this now and will sell you a big bag of the stuff for a couple of pounds - there is enough meat and nutrition on there to feed yourself for a week -
Here's the problem, POPs and heavy metals accumulate in the bones too, so when drinking bone broth, it's important to process the toxins out of your body quickly so it's not reabsorbed: stay hydrated, eat plant foods regularly so fiber is present to bind with the toxins, and "keep things moving" through the bowels.
I'm in menopause now and the collagen loss has been horrific. Bone broth is very important for me. I'm glad your educating people how to source bones and make broth. That's awesome!
Did you manage the read the SACN report on carbohydrates (rather than the one that focused on sugars)?It's an interesting perspective, @Winnie53 , and I'm grateful for your reply.
I, too, spent the last 5 years volunteering in a non-profit (though, luckily, fundraising was but a fraction of our time - annual monitoring was a far bigger bugbear) and the thing I learned from the people we worked for - families with disabled children - is that if you give people the right information, they'll generally follow it. And the more authority that information has when it's delivered, the faster that process will be.
I sort of want to quote the Guardian article from an earlier post verbatim here, but it's a long read (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin) and basically posits that our high-and-climbing incidents of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and various other health-service-destroying nasties are a result of bad information that was taken up by those in authority and handed out to the masses.
There is a particularly interesting (and relevant) paragraph:
The article goes on to demonstrate how the "Low fat, more carbs!" lobby gained control and, as a direct result of that powerfully-delivered advice, people followed it.
I have no doubt at all that if the advice changed suddenly to reflect actual nutritional science, people would manage it. And even if all people didn't (and of course they won't), at least the burden on our essential services would diminish.
I would say that the majority of diabetics (reading about the experiences of so many people when it comes to engaging with health services on this site alone) don't understand why they need to. And if they do, they're not then given the (relatively cheap compared to amputation, dialysis and transplant alternatives) tools to see the effect giving that stuff up has upon them.
I swear, if every T2 upon diagnosis was given a meter and the suggestion that they cut out carbs for 2 weeks - even without the tricky scientific information - we'd not even be having this conversation. Honestly, direct them to this website, prepare and care for them through any ketoflu they experience and, boom, you've got a lifer.
It's not about punishing lifestyles, or even statutory services who followed advice given them by "nutritional experts" (again, the article clearly demonstrates the bias and fashionability of nutritional "science" and how much of what we're told isn't based upon any science at all.), but giving people half a chance to stop poisoning themselves and their families and choose a lifestyle based upon honestly-gained information. If they're given the facts and still choose to eat carbs, that's their affair, and we live in a country that allows personal choice, whether good or bad. But as it is, LCHF is dismissed as a faddy or crash diet by the NHS and the information that people really need to heal themselves isn't getting out there. They/we have no choice at all.
I think this forum very clearly demonstrates that people, when given the correct information in a format they can understand, will try to do the "right" thing. And, sure, there's personal choice and the dopamine feedback loop and decades of imprinted nutritional advice to take into account, but everyone here has overcome that and reduced their personal risk of complication, so why shouldn't we expect that anyone can? Are we saying people on this site are super-special? No. We're all just people.
But currently, it's not even being talked about. There is absolutely zero discussion of another way to manage diabetes. Not in the press, not on TV, not on the NHS website, nowhere. And yet the answer to the imminent NHS crisis is carb reduction! The impact that carbs have on your body - from birth - has been and continues to be carefully hidden until some maverick like Dr Unwin or John Ludkin come along and risk their careers and reputations trying to drag that truth into the light.
That's not science. And that's not supply-and-demand. That's an industrial drug ring, working hard and paying good money to ensure we get addicted as infants and stay addicted to what they're peddling. We've been raised to be addicts, and that's not a clear and unbaised choice that anyone got to make. While I generally don't believe in "evil", I genuinely don't believe these companies have the interests of their consumers at heart. And I'm not saying "Sue them out of spite!" but "Sue them because they've been culpable for 40 years for a conspiracy that is still causing millions of deaths and money is the only language they speak".
I really admire your support group endeavour, Winnie. I wish you every luck (and whatever assistance I can offer from a distance). But you're swimming against the tide in a pool filled with people who just don't understand how the information they've been given all their lives is wrong. The authority of the message is too great to easily overcome; by the time you're facing life-changing complications, I guess you figure you've got not much else to lose, so why not think about low carbing?
But until this very simple, highly effective, drug-free solution is given the time of day, nothing is going to change. And yes, I think we should all be angry about that.
@Oldvatr : That sugar report absolutely blows my mind, too. It even acknowledges that, though carbs are made of sugar (excepting dietary fibre) it's only going to focus on "free sugars":
So it's not actually concentrating on - or even looking at - carbs at all, but sliding past the starches (which it acknowledges are also made of sugars, but they're not "free" sugars and so, for the purpose of this particular review, don't count) and looking only at the refined white stuff.
Also, they don't actually list the research papers and studies they included in the literature they have based their review upon. So you can't tell whether they selected their source material with or without bias, though one paragraph ion particular sort of gives the game away:
Sorry. Went on a bit of a rant at this. Looks like my son is going to get a diagnosis of T2 soon, too. And all because I followed nutritional advice. People should be angry about this. We've been lied to and literally poisoned for years - even after the people who came up with the advice in the first place admitted that it was probably incorrect (also in the Guardian article).
many people don't realise that if you buy chicken carcasses from the butcher, roast them just like whole chicken, you get a kilo of perfectly good meat off the carcasses for use in any number of recipes. we are all so used to not even seeing this stuff we don't appreciate the only difference between it and the regular stuff sold is that you have to behave like Henry VIII to eat it ( and grand fun it is too ) my husband and I had many a chicken carcass salad - even before I was diagnosed - a bit messy maye but ultra cheap I've never paid more than 2 pounds for a bag and that includes up to 7 carcasses.
I then simmer the bones over night - and divide the result into two. One lot goes to add to the cats food to give them some proper nutrient, the rest gets used as the base stock for other dishes - often above ground vegeteble soups with a bit of onion and garlic . Its very moreish - so I have to be careful about portion sizes.
I'm so glad you're thinking of your cats too. The animals are as sick as we are now. It's so sad.
My husband and I make crock pot chicken. Two yams with skins on at the bottom, whole chicken on top, covered with the glass lid. We cook it on high for 6 1/2 to 7 hours. It makes the best meat broth, though it's a bit of an acquired taste.
I've since been trying to replace their food with carb freeoptions, but its a slow process as they are as addicted as i was and I can't get them to watch the Tim Noakes deposition hearings, they do love you tube , but only when is got birds o bird tables ! not graphs of insulin resistance .!
Seriously... these animals. They'll never get good jobs in the future if they're not prepared to apply themselves right now.
Read once (no idea where, sorry), that if we fed our domesticated animals - especially dogs - what they'd typically eat in the wild, they'd "love" us less. Food is a major thing for making dogs think we're both worth being nice to and obeying, and (let's be honest) we like them a little bit hungry because they're trying to please us (as opposed to cats who just sleep...) and giving them treats is fun.
So we decreased how much actual meat we give our beasts and pad it out with ash, bone meal, charcoal and other such nonsense and, in the article, it was presented as an everyone wins scenario: the dogs get lots of food, much of which they can't digest but, they get it often enough for it to not matter. We get to feed our pets twice a day which means they know we exist at least twice a day, and, of course, pet food manufacturers have loads and loads of customers.
I find how we treat our domestic pets compared to how "working" animals - particularly sled dogs really interesting. These are dogs who work in extreme cold, who run for miles and miles after days, sometimes weeks, or inactivity and whose diets are almost exclusively raw meat. They're extraordinarily healthy, long-lived animals. They might not enjoy the trappings of petdom, but they're happy enough to pull a sled for 50km, with no carbs in sight!
Doesnt matter who created eat well plate as of who manufacturers tablets if nhs endorsing the treatment. They are liable.Brilliant.
Disagree with the culprit being NHS. typical litigation goes to the originator, seeDoesnt matter who created
Doesnt matter who created eat well plate as of who manufacturers tablets if nhs endorsing the treatment. They are liable.
Like I said "whose the idiot whose going to bankrupt the nhs?"
Seriously... these animals. They'll never get good jobs in the future if they're not prepared to apply themselves right now.
Read once (no idea where, sorry), that if we fed our domesticated animals - especially dogs - what they'd typically eat in the wild, they'd "love" us less. Food is a major thing for making dogs think we're both worth being nice to and obeying, and (let's be honest) we like them a little bit hungry because they're trying to please us (as opposed to cats who just sleep...) and giving them treats is fun.
So we decreased how much actual meat we give our beasts and pad it out with ash, bone meal, charcoal and other such nonsense and, in the article, it was presented as an everyone wins scenario: the dogs get lots of food, much of which they can't digest but, they get it often enough for it to not matter. We get to feed our pets twice a day which means they know we exist at least twice a day, and, of course, pet food manufacturers have loads and loads of customers.
I find how we treat our domestic pets compared to how "working" animals - particularly sled dogs really interesting. These are dogs who work in extreme cold, who run for miles and miles after days, sometimes weeks, or inactivity and whose diets are almost exclusively raw meat. They're extraordinarily healthy, long-lived animals. They might not enjoy the trappings of petdom, but they're happy enough to pull a sled for 50km, with no carbs in sight!
I think this forum very clearly demonstrates that people, when given the correct information in a format they can understand, will try to do the "right" thing. And, sure, there's personal choice and the dopamine feedback loop and decades of imprinted nutritional advice to take into account, but everyone here has overcome that and reduced their personal risk of complication, so why shouldn't we expect that anyone can? Are we saying people on this site are super-special? No. We're all just people.
After almost 6 years of reading this forum, I wish I could see it through your eyes. I think this forum is a safe place for type 2's in a high carb world.
This forum took a long time to accept even moderate low carbs as a viable option and it was an unpleasant struggle.
Now this year for the first time we see doctors recommending this forum and not the other one. For the first time I see new members coming on complaining that their doctors have recommended that they reduce carbs. Shock horror!!!
Change is happening, this forum is still ahead of the curve and many people who don't like the message don't hang around.
And, ****, even if you don't want to low-carb or whatever, I hope that people still find value in the deep-rooted sense of community and mutual support that is everywhere here. It makes me sad to think that people don't find something they're looking for when they end up on this site.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?