Other diabetes bodies

GeoffersTaylor · Sep 2, 2015

Sorry if this transgresses, but I'd like to ask a question about Diabetes UK ... how come they make no mention of LCHF? They've got some eminent specialists on their board of trustees and they must be aware of the research, so what gives?

The reason I'm asking is that there's an article in today's Times about a potential sugar tax. I've joined the discussion to tell people about LCHF and someone else has responded with "That's not what Diabetes UK say". And they don't, so I'm curious as to why.

tim2000s · Sep 2, 2015

Diabetes UK adhere to the UK NHS guidelines. as there is no mention of LCHF in that (in spite of the benefits many have seen) they dont' or won't advocate it.

Pinkorchid · Sep 2, 2015

Because it is not the recommended diet advice given by the NHS and taken over all the diabetics that there are here and worldwide those that do LCHF is still very much in the minority it needs a massive majority doing it and showing the benefits before the NHS will change their guidelines

Squire Fulwood · Sep 2, 2015

This is about as close as they get to it.

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/About_u...ydrate-diets-for-people-with-Type-2-diabetes/

Celeriac · Sep 2, 2015

There could be a majority of people doing versions of lower carb and they still wouldn't change because the guidelines are for population at large.

Secondly. If the govt changes them and admit they got it wrong, that opens them up to class actions.

Thirdly, it isn't possible for food manufacturers to re-formulate products overnight to make them lower carb. They only started making gluten-free once the way of eating spread beyond coeliacs and became more mainstream. It opened up new markets and enabled them to make bigger profits.

In California low carb is pretty popular so we may see more low carb junk arrive here eventually. We tend to follow USA rather than European nations so though LCHF is really popular in Sweden that has made no impact here.

alaska · Sep 2, 2015

Interestingly, Diabetes UK have been gradually and slightly reducing how much carbs they advise/expose people to in their publications over the last few years.

Their diet advice has been slowly improving and they've been introducing lower carb recipes. They appear afraid to raise the level of fat though, so their low carb recipes end up being very low calorie.

A relatively large number of their recipes still exceed 70g of carbs per meal.

Diabetes UK are aware of the positive research surrounding low carb diets but as Tim says, they clearly don't want to contradict what the NHS is saying and the NHS is still following the not-so-rigorously researched diet rules of the 1970s.

SunnyExpat · Sep 2, 2015

Celeriac said:
There could be a majority of people doing versions of lower carb and they still wouldn't change because the guidelines are for population at large.

Secondly. If the govt changes them and admit they got it wrong, that opens them up to class actions.

Thirdly, it isn't possible for food manufacturers to re-formulate products overnight to make them lower carb. They only started making gluten-free once the way of eating spread beyond coeliacs and became more mainstream. It opened up new markets and enabled them to make bigger profits.

In California low carb is pretty popular so we may see more low carb junk arrive here eventually. We tend to follow USA rather than European nations so though LCHF is really popular in Sweden that has made no impact here.

Oddly enough, the UK is actually quite good.
Diabetes National prevalence/ comparative prevalence

UK 5.4%/ 3.9%
France 7.2%/ 5.2%
Spain 10.6%/ 7.9%
Sweden 6.1%/ 4.5%
USA 11.4%/ 9.4%

So compared to my adopted Mediterranean diet, the pie, mash and peas diet of the UK seems to be the overall winner, beating even the swedish diet. (Or maybe the UK isn't just pie, mash, and peas after all )

http://www.idf.org/sites/default/files/DA-regional-factsheets-2014_FINAL.pdf

sanguine · Sep 2, 2015

Follow the money. There's not much of it for the pharmaceutical or processed food industries with LCHF.

Squire Fulwood · Sep 2, 2015

Trudi Deakin is a member of this forum, her handle is deakint. She is a complete convert and gave a speech at the 2014 annual conference of DUK. She writes the courses for the diabetes trainers and she also wrote a book called Eat Fat so the word is getting around.

Here is a thread where she explains things.

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/thr...s-low-carb-high-fat.70271/page-10#post-736694

SunnyExpat · Sep 2, 2015

sanguine said:
Follow the money. There's not much of it for the pharmaceutical or processed food industries with LCHF.

Oh, I don't know.
http://uk.atkins.com/products/bars/

Squire Fulwood said:
Trudi Deakin is a member of this forum, her handle is deakint. She is a complete convert and gave a speech at the 2014 annual conference of DUK. She writes the courses for the diabetes trainers and she also wrote a book called Eat Fat so the word is getting around.

http://www.xperthealth.org.uk/shop

very eclectic selection on offer.

Rest assured, if the advice changes, so will the business.

sanguine · Sep 2, 2015

SunnyExpat said:
Rest assured, if the advice changes, so will the business.

IMO the 'business' has a vested interest (and no doubt the influence) to do their utmost to make sure the advice doesn't change. Sugar and refined carbs are very cheap to produce and very profitable.

tim2000s · Sep 2, 2015

sanguine said:
IMO the 'business' has a vested interest (and no doubt the influence) to do their utmost to make sure the advice doesn't change. Sugar and refined carbs are very cheap to produce and very profitable.

Have you tried rendering fat? It's also very cheap to produce and pump into food...

SunnyExpat · Sep 2, 2015

sanguine said:
IMO the 'business' has a vested interest (and no doubt the influence) to do their utmost to make sure the advice doesn't change. Sugar and refined carbs are very cheap to produce and very profitable.

And before sugar and 'refined carbs' were big business, we had others.Tate and Lyle haven't even got to their centennial yet.
Lister's use of even antiseptic isn't quite 150 years old.

Would you prefer the victorian era, as they must have been saying pretty much the same about child labour, the prelude to the industrial revolution, and the slave trade, which were all the 'big business' then.
Business gives the people what they want, times move on regardless of anything else.
Sometimes, no matter which side of the fence you are on, you have to remember you can't tell everyone what to do, all the time.

SunnyExpat · Sep 2, 2015

tim2000s said:
Have you tried rendering fat? It's also very cheap to produce and pump into food...

Eating animals for saturated fats is an interesting conundrum.
Vegetable food, so most carbs, including sugar, seems quite painless really, looking at a plant.

But meat.
I eat it,
I'll happily snare rabbits, dispatch them, skin them, and eat them.
Same with fish.
I do kill lobsters and crabs before boiling them, but then know others that don't.
Shellfish aren't as lucky.
And I've bought fish that have been gutted, but they still move in the bag on the way home.
Bird shoots, a good weekend, but a lot here are snared as well.
I've never dispatched a chicken though.

But then we have to move onto 'humane killing' when they get bigger.
Why, they're no more sensitive than birds, or other, smaller mammals.
(Or at least the thought of it, not every country pays lip service to it like the UK).
Then you get onto food like veal, foie de gras, which seems in-humane from the start.

So where do you draw the line on saturated fat?

It's ok to buy it shrink wrapped in Tesco, but when it's hanging upside down alive at the local market here, would you still be as keen?

As to fat being cheap to produce?
It's only cheap if you consider it as a throw away wrapper your meat is packed in while it's in the field until you want to eat it.
But there's no need to render fat to pump it into food if you can find a market for it.
In fact the opposite, rendering removes the bulk, no body wants that.

noblehead · Sep 2, 2015

There's a mention about LC diets in the latest edition of the their Balance magazine, there's a section in it discussing diets entitled Pick of the Pops (p.48-49).

CollieBoy · Sep 2, 2015

SunnyExpat said:
Eating animals for saturated fats is an interesting conundrum.
Vegetable food, so most carbs, including sugar, seems quite painless really, looking at a plant.

But meat.
I eat it,
I'll happily snare rabbits, dispatch them, skin them, and eat them.
Same with fish.
I do kill lobsters and crabs before boiling them, but then know others that don't.
Shellfish aren't as lucky.
And I've bought fish that have been gutted, but they still move in the bag on the way home.
Bird shoots, a good weekend, but a lot here are snared as well.
I've never dispatched a chicken though.

But then we have to move onto 'humane killing' when they get bigger.
Why, they're no more sensitive than birds, or other, smaller mammals.
(Or at least the thought of it, not every country pays lip service to it like the UK).
Then you get onto food like veal, foie de gras, which seems in-humane from the start.

So where do you draw the line on saturated fat?

It's ok to buy it shrink wrapped in Tesco, but when it's hanging upside down alive at the local market here, would you still be as keen?

As to fat being cheap to produce?
It's only cheap if you consider it as a throw away wrapper your meat is packed in while it's in the field until you want to eat it.
But there's no need to render fat to pump it into food if you can find a market for it.
In fact the opposite, rendering removes the bulk, no body wants that.

Call me a bit wierd, but unless you are prepared to dispatch an animal, you need to think seriously about whether you should eat it!
I can (and have) dispatched birds, animals, fish, but in the most humane & swift way I could, and hence accept the trade off of their existence with me eating their meat.
If I can no longer justifying me killing them then I will become vegetarian.

SunnyExpat · Sep 2, 2015

CollieBoy said:
Call me a bit wierd, but unless you are prepared to dispatch an animal, you need to think seriously about whether you should eat it!
I can (and have) dispatched birds, animals, fish, but in the most humane & swift way I could, and hence accept the trade off of their existence with me eating their meat.
If I can no longer justifying me killing them then I will become vegetarian.

I agree entirely, but doubt most members of the public would be happy to bring their sunday lunch home still breathing.
But then the exercise of dismembering and preparing the joints would be beneficial as well.

tim2000s · Sep 2, 2015

Having broken chicken necks when working on a farm, I think I'm qualified to eat meat.

britishpub · Sep 2, 2015

I ran over a pheasant once

SunnyExpat · Sep 2, 2015

Hope you stopped and threw it in the boot!

Other diabetes bodies

Well-Known Member

Expert

Well-Known Member

Expert

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Expert

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Expert

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Guru

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Expert

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency