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

Something Must Be Done-Update

Grazer

Grazer

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,115
So, we had many discussions about advice on eating carbohydrates, culminating in Desidiabulum posting a thread "something must be done" I talked about this with a friend of mine who has recently reduced his carb intake on health grounds, and he wrote to the Rt Hon Sir George Young at the house of commons. Remarkably, he got a reply from Sir George, and a promise that he'd write to Anne Milton MP, parliamentary Under Secretary for Health. She replied to Sir George who in turn sent a copy to my friend who sent it to me. That letter is shown below with my friends name and address blacked out. (you'll have to use the side bars to read each page fully.):-




I've gone to the government health site listed, http://www.sacn.gov.uk and put "carbohydrates" in the search bar. A specialist "carbohydrate health" team has been meeting for ages, and you can read ther minutes of all the meetings (if you can be bothered!). The next meeting scheduled is listed and you can contribute if you wish. I might write to them, but not sure if it will do any good. Worth a try? At least something is being considered.
Regards
 

Attachments

  • Sir George Youing.jpg
    Sir George Youing.jpg
    119.1 KB · Views: 1,972
  • Sir George Youing (2).jpg
    Sir George Youing (2).jpg
    121 KB · Views: 1,962
Hello

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to raise this issue, seemingly yet again. I too question the validity of ramming carbs down our throats. I look and feel healthier than I have in years due to eliminating most starchy carbs from my diet. The exceptions being All Bran and porridge. I get plenty of energy from fruits and veg and from my love of a healthy, happy life.

Regards
Juliette x
 
One of the big problems with these discussions is the word 'starchy'. I've come to the conclusion that no one person can define what the word means. I 'think' it's meant cover fibrous carbs that will be low-GI. In practice the NHS had hi-jacked the word to cover potatoes, pasta, bread etc of all types. Yes, many of these come from starchy wholemal flour but after processing they all become high-GI non-starchy carbs. Is it just me who doesn't get the word 'starchy'? What do others think? In my opinion the word should be dropped with regard to discussions on diet to avoid confusion.
 
Daibell said:
One of the big problems with these discussions is the word 'starchy'. I've come to the conclusion that no one person can define what the word means. I 'think' it's meant cover fibrous carbs that will be low-GI. In practice the NHS had hi-jacked the word to cover potatoes, pasta, bread etc of all types. Yes, many of these come from starchy wholemal flour but after processing they all become high-GI non-starchy carbs. Is it just me who doesn't get the word 'starchy'? What do others think? In my opinion the word should be dropped with regard to discussions on diet to avoid confusion.
Click to expand...

Hi, I looked in my Thesauras and some of the words i found, regarding the word Starchy is :-

rigid, stubbourn, resistant,intractable,unmalleable,intransigent,firm,inflexable,starched. Also, correct, precise,stiff and stickling :wink: RRB
 
Thanks Grazer - but your mistake was to put an 's' on carbohydrate - you should have got:
Carbohydrate
Terms of Reference:

The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition is requested by the Food Standards Agency and Department of Health to provide clarification of the relationship between dietary carbohydrate and health and make public health recommendations. To achieve this they need to review:

The evidence for a role of dietary carbohydrate in colorectal health in adults (including colorectal cancer, IBS, constipation) and in infancy and childhood.
The evidence on dietary carbohydrate and cardio-metabolic health (including cardiovascular disease, insulin resistance, glycaemic response and obesity).
The evidence in respect to dietary carbohydrates and oral health.
The terminology, classification and definitions of types of carbohydrates in the diet.
Click to expand...
Notice the key words - glycaemic response.
 
As a masochist, I read the minutes of the Carbohydrates Working Group May meeting, & found on page 6:
Matters arising – Cardio metabolic health review - Diabetes
27. Leeds are still to check whether the percentages given on page 11 refer to the
number of publications or number of trials.
Click to expand...
And on page 16:
94. Members discussed the meta-analysis on glycaemic index and load (GI and GL)
on p446. It was noted that many dietary components have been altered in these
studies and not just sugar. Different methods to assess GI and GL have also been
used. It was highlighted that the values presented in the forest plot represent the
difference in change between two treatment arms and not the absolute effect. In
light of the above issues, results should be interpreted carefully.
Click to expand...

Our MPs will of course digest & regurgitate the info - let's hope it's printed on rice paper :sick:

Perhaps one of us should volunteer to join the committee ...
 
I know they'll bury all this under a forest of paper and words, but at least I got letters back from Sir George and Anne Milton MP! Something to stick on the wall in hospital after stuffing my starchy carbs. Interesting in the letter that she agrees that the reccomendation for starchy carbs came because they decided to reccommend less fat and so had to make it up with something else. Probably span a coin "Hmmm, heads more carbs, tails more protein" Problem is of course that once they've decided less fat is good, there's not much else they can do.
So rather than "if diabetics get BGs down by easting less carbs they won't have heart attacks" we get "diabetics have more heart attacks so must eat less fat, thus must eat more carbs"
Just need to turn the conclusion round.
 
Grazer said:
IanD said:
Perhaps one of us should volunteer to join the committee ...
Click to expand...

I'd prefer to die of diabetes rather than boredom!
Click to expand...

Good point . Well done you, good effort. Doesn't it just underline how much work there is to be done though just to get
a simple , self eveident concept accepted? It wouldn' be so bad if the chosen alernative was not , of itself a danger o many of us.

Very frustrating! I suppose all that can be done is o keep choipping away and spreading awareness.
 
Sheepy, I just want to thank you for doing this. I believe it is only by us speaking out is there even a small chance anyone will listen. Sadly after watching "the men who made us fat" I believe the Government (all persuasions) are in the pay of the food industry, and the diet we adopt of all fresh, no ready meals, ultra healthy, is not what the food industry want at all. They must hate well controlled diabetics, and more so vocal ones!
 
I'm still spluttering over the line "this is based on the COMA report of ... 1991 "

1991 ? Are we really still basing government dietary advice on a report published more than 20 years ago? Have we learnt nothing that could further this debate in the last two decades?

sheesh..
 
swimmer2 said:
I'm still spluttering over the line "this is based on the COMA report of ... 1991 "

1991 ? Are we really still basing government dietary advice on a report published more than 20 years ago? Have we learnt nothing that could further this debate in the last two decades?

sheesh..
Click to expand...

Added to very historic data, I am sure I have read on this forum, people who were diagnosed many years ago, were advised to follow a reduced carb diet. I am so angry as I am certain the amount of complications and deaths of diabetic patients is in large part due to the very much out of control power the food industry exerts over the government and organisations with the funds and position to effect change, such as DUK. When I was first diagnosed, I had no idea Kelloggs sponsored DUK, my heart sank when I realised it did!!
 
Did you see the committee has been discussing carbohydrates since April 2008 wonder when they are due to report their findings
 
And will their findings be worth the wait? I bet so many people will vet their findings and make changes to suit their own interests before they are published that they'll be next to useless.

Smidge
 
I emailed my MP over the weekend about the July Nice guidelines for diet and immediately received the usual meaningless acknowledgement . I expected nothing more but just thought that if everyone did the same than if he subject ever came up for discussion and most had at least HEARD of it before it migh help attract their attnion at leas.

I have to say that I believe the obesiy and carbohydrates issue , important as it is, should be reated as a separate issue to the dieay guidance o diabetics issue, Other conditions are recognised as perhaps requiring some adjustmen to diet . Why is diabetes which affects so many of us treated differently?
Ting diabeeds diet to the whole obesity debate and all that entails is delaying and obscuring the issue.

Keep it simple. Wait for thesecommittees and you wait for ever. Give people the simple advice which will help many to control the condiition and save the country millions..
 
That COMA report is very outdated:
The recommendations for fatty acids were primarily made because of their effect on serum cholesterol. Numerous epidemiological and clinical studies have demonstrated a positive and continuous relationship between serum cholesterol and risk of CHD.
Click to expand...

Wheras the 2012 Cochrane Review states unequivocally:
Reduction and modification of dietary fats have differing effects on cardiovascular risk factors (such as serum cholesterol), but their effects on important health outcomes are less clear.
Click to expand...
There are no clear health benefits of replacing saturated fats with starchy foods (reducing the total amount of fat we eat).
Click to expand...
The findings are suggestive of a small but potentially important reduction in cardiovascular risk on modification of dietary fat, but not reduction of total fat, in longer trials.
Click to expand...

So the COMA report is saying "replace fats with starchy carbohydrates" and the Cochrane Review (which is supposedly the "Gold Standard") is saying "don't replace fats with starchy carbohydrates".

I'd also note that none of the "numerous epidemioloigcal and clinical studies" on which the COMA report is based, are in the context of a low-carbohydrate diet.
 
The only reason why I am able to control my amount of weight to be correct for my height is by calculating the correct amount of carbohydrate that I eat throughout the day with the level of activity that I do to balance everything out. The more carb that I eat, the more insulin I need and the more weight I will put on if my consumption of carb increases so I do have to regulate it, that's for sure.
 
swimmer2 said:
I'm still spluttering over the line "this is based on the COMA report of ... 1991 "

sheesh..
Click to expand...
Says it all "the COMA report" : sonds like they've sprung into unconciousness and are doing b***er all :lol: :lol:
sounds like par for the course from health investigations.
 
Back
Top