Low carb diets and Diabetes UK

douglas99 · Jan 21, 2014

catherinecherub said:
Douglas,
You want people to put together a perfect diet. It is not possible. People have likes and dislikes, other health problems that limit what they can eat, they may or may not be physically active, take other medications that affect their blood sugars, be elderly and live alone without the motivation to cook, etc.... There is no perfect diet, only a diet that suits the individual and keeps their blood sugars at a reasonable level.

I think we all want to put together a better one.
Maybe not perfect, but better.
To a degree though, that's DUK's problem.
They have to suggest a diet, and provide examples, for the majority.
They can't just say eat less.
What they suggested for me wasn't perfect, but it was better.
I've now researched my own, which I'm open to change as I need to.

But none of us on here are the majority of diabetic patients, who may need to be told a specific diet.
I needed one initially.

xyzzy · Jan 21, 2014

We all have a story Douglas. So mine is a less extreme version of IanD's in that I followed the DUK diet for a year and it gave me diabetes. I followed it as a low calorie low fat portion controlled regime and was well peeved with the result which is why I researched and found an alternative that works for me ie I followed the advise I give other people.

It certainly isn't "where DUK is now" that's the point I and others are trying to persuade you of.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

Unbeliever · Jan 21, 2014

xyzzy said:
Your joking right?

Kath (unbeliever) has dedicated years of her life handing out balanced and sensible advice to 1000s of people on this and other forums.

Thanks for the kind words Steve. Gets a little tedious telling my story- for me and for others. but those who know me better understand why I feel passionately on these issues.

Kath

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

fatbird · Jan 21, 2014

With respect to the posters and members of the forum. This thread has been mostly dealing with gobbledygook from the honorable gentleman.

Why does DUK not recommend a low carb diet was what the thread was about, this is why. Sorry to quote myself.

“I think we can summarize this thread. DUK do not recommend a low carb diet because it would cost their sponsors i.e. big pharma a huge amount of money. If DUK recommended a low carb diet they would lose many of their sponsors. DUK stick to established guidelines because it is safe and keeps away any chance of litigation. Their dietary advice is decades out of date and is contrary to so many of the members of this forums experience. The DUK dietary advice is wrong, dangerous, and scientifically illiterate.”

Anyone disagree?

FB

Madbazoo · Jan 22, 2014

I know we are all different but when I was diagnosed I got confused with definitions of low carb and what levels etc, which seems to be dominating this conversation.

When anyone asks me for advice I generally steer clear of telling them to measure anything but rather get them to think about Good Carbs instead of Bad Carbs and make adjustments to their diet. Exercise is good but a good walk is a starting point rather than deterring so many with talk of gyms and marathons etc.

It worked for me and some friends and is a good starting point for newbies. Testing comes next in importance and is what we need to emphasise to the medical profession.

Encourage fellow members and stay positive and we can all make progress.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

mpe · Jan 22, 2014

douglas99 said:
Diabetes UK recommends the following:

A range of approaches to weight loss should be considered with the overall aim of energy intake being less than energy expenditure; the most appropriate method to achieve this should be identified between the person with diabetes and their dietitian.

When considering a low-carbohydrate diet as an option for weight loss, people with diabetes should be made aware of possible side effects such as the risk of hypoglycaemia, headaches, lack of concentration, and constipation.

Individual diabetes control should be considered – blood glucose levels need to be closely monitored, with adjustments to medications as required.

Nutritional adequacy should be considered. It should be ensured that optimal amounts of vitamins, minerals and fibre are supplied by the diet.

The amount of carbohydrate to be restricted should be agreed between the person with diabetes and their dietitian.

This is mostly about "weight" (really body fat) loss. Presumably with a hope that improved blood sugar control will be a side effect.
With there also being possible deficiency issues with low fat, low meat or (even) low salt diets.

Rather than about diabetes control. Where a more obvious aim would be to restrict glucose in the diet to a level someone can handle. In the same way that someone with coeliac disease would restrict the amount of gluten in their diet. N.B. neither glucose or gluten are essential, though avoiding them entirely can be difficult.
(In which case any body fat loss would also be a side effect.)

Low-carbohydrate diet: less than 130g per day (26%) of a 2000kcal diet

If that 130g is of glucose then it would be about 722 mmol/day. But if it's of amylose/amylopectin that would be about 802 mmol/day. (If it's lactose/sucrose the corresponding figure is ~380 mmol/day.) Here it matters exactly WHAT is being eaten.
Whilst all carbohydrates might be equal according to the "calorie paradigm" this is not the case where it comes to the effect on blood chemistry. (Even the lowest number is more than 15 times amount of glucose which should be in the blood.)

Andy12345 · Jan 22, 2014

Madbazoo said:
I know we are all different but when I was diagnosed I got confused with definitions of low carb and what levels etc, which seems to be dominating this conversation.

When anyone asks me for advice I generally steer clear of telling them to measure anything but rather get them to think about Good Carbs instead of Bad Carbs and make adjustments to their diet. Exercise is good but a good walk is a starting point rather than deterring so many with talk of gyms and marathons etc.

It worked for me and some friends and is a good starting point for newbies. Testing comes next in importance and is what we need to emphasise to the medical profession.

Encourage fellow members and stay positive and we can all make progress.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

first time ive read one of your posts and disagreed hehe

for me being able to measure is and was essential, good carbs bad carbs are still carbs ie sugar and should be reduced imo the quicker people know that the better, although i and most people do suggest the immediate move over to those types of carbs

ive never seen anyone suggest gym or a marathon to anyone not doing exercise, its always been a gentle walk

testing is first and foremost on the list of importance again my opinion

encouraging members is a huge part of newbie posts unless im missing something mate

mpe · Jan 22, 2014

Daibell said:
I wonder how many of the Care Team staff have professional qualifications? By that I mean something like degree level training in a subject including an understanding of the scientific method, human biology and so on.

I'm not sure that either the biology or the chemistry involved is any more advanced than GCE O-level.

Andy12345 · Jan 22, 2014

i dont know what o levels i should have got to understnd a word of your previous post mpe but im sure i didnt get them

mpe · Jan 22, 2014

xyzzy said:
..

It is perfectly true that the Swedes advocate a range of restricted carb regimes in their national health care document "Kost Vid Diabetes" They even accept ketogenic regimes under hcp supervision so I have nothing to retract there.

I also know many T2 diabetics who sit happily in that 120 to 180g range advocated by the ADA as well as many who have to do less. The point is even 180 is far less than the 300g a day that DUK states is the requirement in the position statements I gave links to.

Looks like DUK are "parroting" the GDA numbers. Which could equate to 333g glucose for men and 255g glucose for women. Which may, in practice, be too high even for people who are not (yet) diabetic.

It seems obvious, at least to me, that people should avoid eating more glucose (or anything else) than their bodies can cope with. It is well demonstrated that humans can be perfectly healthy on diets which contain no glucose at all. (The human body being capable of making any glucose it actually needs. Which is probably nowhere near several hundred grammes a day.)
What part of "Glucose is not an essential nutrient" is not being understood here?

Andy12345 · Jan 22, 2014

mpe said:
Looks like DUK are "parroting" the GDA numbers. Which could equate to 333g glucose for men and 255g glucose for women. Which may, in practice, be too high even for people who are not (yet) diabetic.

It seems obvious, at least to me, that people should avoid eating more glucose (or anything else) than their bodies can cope with. It is well demonstrated that humans can be perfectly healthy on diets which contain no glucose at all. (The human body being capable of making any glucose it actually needs. Which is probably nowhere near several hundred grammes a day.)
What part of "Glucose is not an essential nutrient" is not being understood here?

perfect! thats ll they need to hear, after that your hitting your heads against a brick wall

mpe · Jan 22, 2014

douglas99 said:
That's an issue with simply trying to replace the good old "balanced diet for all", with "low carbs for all"

An irony here is that the former is actually fairly modern. Even without considering foodstuffs which havn't been around that long.
Whereas there are "low carb" diets which have been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
There's even a sub group ("Paleo") which makes a specific point of trying to be prehistoric.

douglas99 · Jan 22, 2014

mpe said:
An irony here is that the former is actually fairly modern. Even without considering foodstuffs which havn't been around that long.
Whereas there are "low carb" diets which have been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
There's even a sub group ("Paleo") which makes a specific point of trying to be prehistoric.

Nah!
This thread is done to death already.

Andy12345 · Jan 22, 2014

lol, ya think?

douglas99 · Jan 22, 2014

At least I wasn't involved in the fight on the new thread.

Andy12345 · Jan 22, 2014

hehe ive stayed away too

mo1905 · Jan 22, 2014

Wise decision gents ! I've been on this forum over a year now and every time a low carb thread starts, it ends in tears and mud slinging ! The new thread is much the same, a list of quotes, links and scientific papers ! I just switch off ! Take care !
Mo

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

mpe · Jan 22, 2014

xyzzy said:
There are many long term studies that show the duk regime is wrong. They claim to use evidence based science but ignore perfectly good evidence based science which they don't agree with.

Such pseudoscience is not uncommon. Even where the people doing it claim to understand the concept of "falsification" of theories.

You seem to be assuming people get fat because they overeat. That is a gross over simplification. There are countless reasons for weight gain and simply blaming overeating just continues the pretty offensive myth that it's "the food in your mouth" and nothing else. It stigmatises people as fat and lazy and does no one any good imo

Even if overeating plays a part it actually appears to matter what is being eaten. With the "calorie idea" being useless when it comes to explaining how animals get fat. There is plenty of evidence that high carbohydrate diets are bad for many species of animal. (Even many herbivores wouldn't eat anything like two thirds carbohydrates.)

noblehead · Jan 22, 2014

mo1905 said:
I just switch off !

I think most do Mo which is unfortunate, once the 'Big Pharma' nonsense starts to appear that enough for me

Madbazoo · Jan 22, 2014

Got bored with this thread so moving on to something else

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

Low carb diets and Diabetes UK

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Expert

Well-Known Member

Expert

Well-Known Member

Expert

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Expert

Well-Known Member

Expert

BANNED

Well-Known Member

Guru

Well-Known Member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency