ChrisSamsDad
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 446
- Location
- Eccles, Lancashire
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Tablets (oral)
- Dislikes
- UKIP, royalty, football, gin, goat's cheese.
This isn't a Peer Review journal it is a support forum for people with diabetes.
That's true in general, but my objection is specifically talking about doctors and other health care workers as if they were evil, stupid or reckless. I think it would help if we all realised how much they are constrained by the system and why that's not always a bad thing. The trouble with forums and self-guiding internet communities is that they tend to 'groupthink' - driving away any users and ideas that go against the flow and reinforcing faulting thinking.
Those of us who are managing our own BS and in particular low-carbing don't have all the answers, it works for us to a lesser or greater extent, but we're NOT the entire diabetic community and there's a lot which we are doing which we don't know are good for us in all ways - you look on here and you'll mainly see stories of success, because perhaps those who don't have the willpower or the enthusiasm or whatever, don't come here or leave more than those for whom it works.
It's therefore not wise to talk as if it's a done deal which doctors and other NHS staff are deliberately or through ignorance keeping us in the dark about. We're essentially performing experiments on ourselves and my point is that doctors, especially GPs, don't work like that - as far as they are concerned, a whole different standard of evidence is needed before they can recommend a course of action - they follow guidelines - and if anything, it's the guidelines which need changing, not doctors just liking the sound of a new treatment because some patients said it worked for them - if they did they'd be recommending such quack treatments as Reiki, Reflexology, Faith Healing, Homeopathy, Acupuncture and Chiropractic.
if they did they'd be recommending such quack treatments as Reiki, Reflexology, Faith Healing, Homeopathy, Acupuncture and Chiropractic.
But it is okay to label other alternative approaches to health "quacks"?
Seems you want only your approach/opinion to be considered.
Doctors, FOR THE MOST PART, are uneducated in nutritional matters, and diabetic nurses, well, they follow the guidelines. Otherwise they'd see those of us who are strict and succeeding as fuel for a movement to heal others who are facing diabetes... And who might be in more dire need of a non-allopathic approach.
Neither are being cast here as "evil", but rather, just doing as they've been told. And doing as they've been told creates the illusion that diabetes is an irreversible, progressive disease. It is not. People right here are proving that, formally funded research study or not.
I hope I don't sound mean, but I personally believe in at least four of your condemned holistic approaches.
Sent from my iPad using DCUK Forum
Good for you, but doctors believe
I only call them 'quacks' in the sense that they are unqualified pedlars selling 'therapies' that are proven not to work, "Snake-Oil Salesmen" might be better. Belief in therapies is not the best way to decide: I'm sure you believe they work and you're entitled to that opinion, but in the hierarchy of scientific evidence - 'opinion' is quite low, there are better ways to decide if it works:
(Out of interest: I'm low carbing and a lot of people here are and apparently getting good results - that comes under 'Case Reports' - as you so rightly said healthcare people have to work to a higher standard than that)
The sensible thing is to take that belief and test it against evidence: If you don't that's unquestioning FAITH (I hope we can agree that's the bad kind) and for all those therapies, the jury is not just no longer out, it's come in, laughed the case out of court, said goodbye to each other, gone home and moved on with it's life, got married, bought a house, had children, grandchildren, retired, died and become one with the universe.They don't work any more than placebo, that's a PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times) and in many cases are dangerous (giving people strokes in the case of Chiropractic) and convincing people not to have proper treatment in the case of the others.
You might say this about doctors and drug treatment for diabetes, but it does work to some extent - it extends your life more than without it, but clearly the science of nutrition has had and continues to have problems - however, they're caused by BAD SCIENCE, not by the fact they were too scientific. They relied on received wisdom and 'experts' too much, instead of being open to change in light of new evidence.
Sure, except the current dietary guidelines haven't been shown to do a particularly good job of treating type 2 diabetes. In fact, I was specifically told if I follow their dietary recommendations, then my diabetes would get worse over time with more meds until finally I would be on insulin. Even now, after having reversed my diabetes and improved my overall health drastically with LCHF, they would have me eat a high carb low fat diet if they could get their way.I always have a bit of a problem when I hear or read phrases that a group of people (doctors, nurses, pharmacists ot whatever) are bad, evil or wrong. Logically, not all of any group can be bad - sure, some will be, but against that there will be good ones too.
The question here should be 'are the recommendations given to GPs fit for practice. Now,on this we have to face the bureaucracy of the NIH in the USA and NICE in the UK. Both are extremely conservative and slow. Remember, the memories of thalidomide still cloud the judgement of many of their senior clinicians. They don't want to make mistakes and, more importantly, they don't want to be seen to make mistakes. As far as they are concerned, if there is evidence that LCHF works, it needs to be tested, retested and tested again. And only then will it be given a cautious welcome.
Don't get me wrong, I am no apologist for bad GPs (I happen to have one) but we won't convince our opposition by calling them bad or evil. We will do it by the strength of our own argument - and on that the responsibility lies with us.
I think the current treatment approach by HCPs for type 2 diabetes is based primarily on "ideas, editorials, and opinions." A week with a blood glucose meter and it was obvious what I needed to do and it wasn't to follow what my doctor, dietician or nurse told me to do. It was pretty close to the opposite! If I can figure it out, why can't they? It boggles the mind.
The current approach to treating type 2 diabetes is based on the disproved idea that it can't be reversed and that the biggest problem for type 2 diabetics is heart disease, so a high carb low fat diet is the best thing to prevent heart disease. These ideas are patently wrong and there's plenty of research that shows they're wrong and that LCHF can reverse type 2 diabetes. Most LCHF studies are not actually low carb in that they are just a little bit lower carb than a normal diet. By the way, LCHF is quite simple and it works. Whereas trying to following the healthy plate, or whatever it is, is not easy and it doesn't work. Anyway, I won't argue with you anymore. LCHF worked for me, so that's enough evidence that it can work as far as I'm concerned.You're not wrong - the guidelines do seem to be decided upon without very good evidence and lack of research. I just think we shouldn't fool ourselves into replacing it with another system that's derived from the same method. We really need strong evidence - not just to convince doctors but to separate the good and bad things we're doing but aren't aware of. If you look at the difference between our LCHF and the Atkins diet, Atkins got many things right, but he got a lot wrong because they were ideas based on his opinion as much as research - the very idea behind it all, that the diet produced weight loss through more energy being burned - was easy to prove wrong. Many studies of low-carb diets in the general population have been done, and given the difficulty of scientific study of people dieting (they don't all stick to it and lie to themselves and researchers basically) they did a meta-review of only a few hundred but found no difference for weight-loss after 12 months.
I think research is vitally important - given the epidemic proportions of diabetes and all the emerging evidence that many things are wrong with the current advice for diabetics. If you look around on here, it's clear that just calling this LCHF doesn't cover the nuanced approach each of us have - I think you're a case in point from what I've read - your diet is a bit more extreme than most and it would be very useful to separate the wheat from the chaff - I'm sure many people have convinced themselves that something they really like to eat is fine when it isn't really ideal and also it seems clear to me that the people on here are very able to educate themselves about the food they eat and try to understand the biology that's going on in their bodies. That's not the case with everyone. I went on one of those NHS 'Expert' courses and to be honest, several people on it just couldn't understand basic things like food groups or actively revelled in their ignorance.
For many people the level of complexity needed to do this is too high for whatever reason, and that's hopefully what better research could come up with - a simplified approach with an easier toolkit.
The current approach to treating type 2 diabetes is based on the disproved idea that it can't be reversed and that the biggest problem for type 2 diabetics is heart disease, so a high carb low fat diet is the best thing to prevent heart disease. These ideas are patently wrong and there's plenty of research that shows they're wrong and that LCHF can reverse type 2 diabetes. Most LCHF studies are not actually low carb in that they are just a little bit lower carb than a normal diet. By the way, LCHF is quite simple and it works. Whereas trying to following the healthy plate, or whatever it is, is not easy and it doesn't work. Anyway, I won't argue with you anymore. LCHF worked for me, so that's enough evidence that it can work as far as I'm concerned.
Must say LCHF is working for me. There is one problem. Both my HDL and LDL and total have all gone up a bit. My Total is a 5.4, LDL is 3.? can't remember and my HDL is 1.03.
Just saw the doctor with the results and I'm happy to report that my a1c is at 5.5! That's after 3 months of diagnosis. Must say LCHF is working for me. There is one problem. Both my HDL and LDL and total have all gone up a bit. My Total is a 5.4, LDL is 3.? can't remember and my HDL is 1.03. I'll see him again in a week or two after a 24 hour blood pressure monitor. So I may have to change what fats I am eating and/or get a few more greens in the diet.
Doc was really happy to see I'm taking charge of this. He even said that if I can keep my numbers at 5.5 or lower he'll take me off the metformin. He also didn't have any problem prescribing more test strips. I really haven't told him about the high fat part of the diet as I'm not sure how he'll take it. I think that if I can get my numbers in to the "normal" range he'll be happy. I'll be happy also. So he's not all about pushing pills but he also wants to make sure I don't fall back to my old habits. I told him if I can keep getting test strips it will help keep me honest.
I'm still not convinced he's all that knowledgeable about diabetes but he doesn't really need to be. He just has to sign the blood test forms and give me the results. I think I can handle it from there. Besides he's not the one telling me what to eat. The dietician is. So if I can get my HDL/LDL under control then she won't have anything to say about it either.
Thanks for all the support everyone. Thanks for keeping me honest. Most of all thanks for all the links to good recipes.
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?