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

Low carb diets and Diabetes UK

Status
Not open for further replies.
douglas99 said:
That's an issue with simply trying to replace the good old "balanced diet for all", with "low carbs for all"
Click to expand...

No one sensible suggests that so stop spinning it that way. Another very old and very tired attempt at discrediting people who have the audacity not to agree with you.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
xyzzy said:
You should care because the various regimes not curently recommended by DUK could well save people's sight limbs and lives. Even if you don't care about that consider the savings to the NHS etc. DUKs intransigence is totally immoral.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
Click to expand...
Oh I certainly care about my sight and
limbs and I try to help and advise as many people as I can on here but I won't waste my time and effort on battles that bear no relevence to those that actually live with the condition. Information is so freely available now via search engines etc that any reasonably intelligent person looks for their own answers rather than an NHS pamphlet !


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
xyzzy said:
No one sensible suggests that so stop spinning it that way. Another very old and very tired attempt at discrediting people who have the audacity not to agree with you.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
Click to expand...

Glad we agree then.
A variety of diets, not just lobby to adopt low carb?
 
douglas99 said:
That doesn't actually work, if your view, is as you say, Xyzzy's view.
I'll still to my view, but if you want only the low carb view, maybe the low carb forum would have been a better place?
Click to expand...

aaaah! You'll have to wait 'til tommorow for a reply as in the spirit of DUK-It's a 'Cereal/Serial" !!
 
douglas99 said:
That doesn't actually work, if your view, is as you say, Xyzzy's view.
I'll still to my view, but if you want only the low carb view, maybe the low carb forum would have been a better place?
Click to expand...


I object. This is not a debate about low carb it is a debate about DUK not accepting any view except it's own. That is what the OP is posting about. It is you who are focusing on carbs rather than DUk'S arrogance.

Please don't try and paint me as some kind of low carb fanatic as lots of people know I get just as much criticism from the low carb advocates for my "do what works for you" stance as I do from those who are anti low carb.

I find the whole carb debate pointless.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
xyzzy said:
I object. This is not a debate about low carb it is a debate about DUK not accepting any view except it's own. That is what the OP is posting about. It is you who are focusing on carbs rather than DUk'S arrogance.

Please don't try and paint me as some kind of low carb fanatic as lots of people know I get just as much criticism from the low carb advocates for my "do what works for you" stance as I do from those who are anti low carb.

I find the whole carb debate pointless.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
Click to expand...

No, I agree it's not debate about low carb.
I found it ironic though, that the complaint that DUK are arrogant by not accepting any view other than their own, and to remedy it by suggesting raising a low carb lobby group to lobby them to adopt low carb, rather than to raise a lobby group to investigate the benefits of any diet, as there are more ways than low carb, all equally valid from the research on them all.

Just a reminder of the very first line of this thread though,

"A few months ago I posted a request on this forum for low carb diet research papers in the attempt to persuade Diabetes UK to change its policy on low carb diets."
 
Actually, there is only one diet that is alleged to reverse diabetes, with proven results.
So why aren't we lobbying for the Newcastle diet?
All those that fit into the correct profile as the original subjects.
Make it the first line of medical treatment.
If that would reverse diabetes, no prospect of any complications, a clear future, it should be made mandatory.
That's something worth lobbying for!
 
douglas99 said:
Actually, there is only one diet that is alleged to reverse diabetes, with proven results.
So why aren't we lobbying for the Newcastle diet?
All those that fit into the correct profile as the original subjects.
Make it the first line of medical treatment.
If that would reverse diabetes, no prospect of any complications, a clear future, it should be made mandatory.
That's something worth lobbying for!
Click to expand...

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Research...t/Research-spotlight-low-calorie-liquid-diet/
 
All that the OP is asking is for DUK to acknowledge low carb diets as an option for managing diabetes both for Type1 and Type2. He is not saying that low carbing should be the only option. I doubt that the Newcastle Diet would be advantageous for Type 1.
 
catherinecherub said:
All that the OP is asking is for DUK to acknowledge low carb diets as an option for managing diabetes both for Type1 and Type2. He is not saying that low carbing should be the only option. I doubt that the Newcastle Diet would be advantageous for Type 1.
Click to expand...
Spot on, Catherine.
 
craig81 said:
Without wanting to sound like a conspiracy nut, dietary advice is largely based on economic interest. In fact, every decision made politically at any level is first of all a question based on economies.We had the news today of the professor recruited by the government to write recommendations on dietary sugar intake, who has admitted receiving a direct sum from coca cola to advise them on dietary advice. He then, allegedly, also receives money from Mars to help him conduct his university 'research'. This is by no means an isolated incident.
Click to expand...

Whilst there are certainly economic interests involved, the food industry likes to increase profit margins, there is also plenty of questionable input from supposed "scientists". (Even where there is no influence from the food or pharrmacutical industries.)
The relationship between economics and politics is complex too. With political dogma often trumping economic issues. (Politics exists wherever you have people, including in scientific research. Which can easily lead to people clinging to "theories" which should long ago have been considered "falsified".)

The very notion of a 'balanced' diet, based on calories, was ingenuously created to allow consumption of nutritiously poor foods into our every day diets.
Click to expand...

The whole idea of "calories" having any meaning when it comes to the metabolism of complex organisms is something like a century past it's "use by date" :) It's more from the psudo/junk science catagory than anything else.

The idea that 500 calories of cola and chocolate has the same metabolic effects on weight and body composition as 500 calories from vegetables and lean meat is ridiculous; yet this is what most people are brainwashed into thinking.
Click to expand...

Actually all four groups of food might be expected to have different effects on people eating them. The only context in which the 500 calories means anything is if you were burning them to heat water. (On the other hand generating electricity using soft drinks might make more sense than using wind.)

Bottom line is that people are getting sicker. Type 2 diabetes is skyrocketing. Diagnosis of type 1 is increasing year on year. Rates of autoimmunity of all conditions are increasing. Our food environment is becoming more and more toxic, and every year food companies are allowed to engage in 'voluntary regulation' to help reduce the very conditions that their products promote.
Click to expand...

Or possibly to lobby for more of the same...
 
catherinecherub said:
All that the OP is asking is for DUK to acknowledge low carb diets as an option for managing diabetes both for Type1 and Type2. He is not saying that low carbing should be the only option. I doubt that the Newcastle Diet would be advantageous for Type 1.
Click to expand...

Reading some posts on here, from type 1's who would also claim that low carbing makes it more difficult to manage type 1 as the ratios have more scope for error, as the difference a few g of carbs makes increases as the overall carbs getting lower.
Type 1 isn't my subject though, so I'll only speak for myself, as I would like to see the Newcastle diet pushed first for type 2's.
 
catherinecherub said:
All that the OP is asking is for DUK to acknowledge low carb diets as an option for managing diabetes both for Type1 and Type2. He is not saying that low carbing should be the only option. I doubt that the Newcastle Diet would be advantageous for Type 1.
Click to expand...

Exactly, all most of us want is for dietary advice to be indiviualised and to include without bias a range of valid regimes. This is precisely the Swedish model where a range of regimes is accepted. It now seems to be what the ADA also recommend. The common denominator for both the Swedish system and the ADA is their acceptance that regardless of what diet is chosen the emphasis is on reducing total carbohydrate consumption ie a rejection of the 250 to 300g a day mantra that DUK still insists on pushing. The Swedes explicitly make it clear in "Kost vid diabetes" that the standard UK style regime is the one regime they don't recommend and with the ADAs quarter plate recommendations effectively the Americas reject the DUK position too.

As to campaigning. A load of us tried a couple of years ago to get DCUK to distinguish itself further from DUK by arguing it should adopt a more global stance in its Web site front pages rather than emphasising the (D)UK line. We were told it wouldn't happen because essentially this is a UK site.

I'd point out it is a UK site that advertises it's global nature. If it was truly global and independent then I'd argue it should be adopting global standards.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
Aren't all the companies that sponsor DUK, American!! It is the web which means that nothing is entirely British.
I don't think its about low carb as such, its about eating fresh and not processed. What is a 'healthy' plate? It's never specified, it's just an assumption that people know what one is. And that would be a low fat diet, which isn't actually what healthy is.
 
its a forum, we can say anything as long as it follows the rules :) but yes it is weird that to get here you follow a link on the website which everyone pretty much agrees is pushing dangerous dietary advice "shrug" you would think who ever runs/owns the site wouldn't allow me to say that right?
 
I am totally new to both T2 and this "group"! I live in NL and am desperately searching for a diet that can keep me off medication and also deal with other (related?) problems like osteoarthritis, depression etc. I have already posted on the Mayo Clinic Diabetes cookbook and journal (looking for advice/opinions) but came across this paper this morning: dated 2007 -"ancient" in research terms but extremely valid, I think! Could I have feedback please?? The link to the full article works - I am a language person, not science but without fully understanding all the tables and diagrams it seems to make good sense ... Anybody tried this?

http://www.staffanlindeberg.com/DiabetesStudy.html

PS I have a healthy suspicion of all pharmaceutically "funded" research :-(


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top