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

Standard diet advice vs low carbs

Following another thread I wrote to my MP about the misguided, outdated and dangerous advise being given out by the NHS.

Yesterday I received this reply

Thank you for your email, and I apologise for the delay in responding. I have looked at the link and am clearly concerned that potentially outdated advice may be being given out. I will take up your concerns with Diabetes UK and the Department for Health about this matter and be in touch with you when I receive their replies.

The link referred to is a thread on this forum but to be honest he could find evidence in any number of threads of how people are being given bad advice and how we on here have found various ways of controling our diabetes.

I don't for a minute think one e mail is going to change 40 yrs of **** advice but as Lucy says above times are achanging. I appreciate the reply from him and I just hope, like Lucy, I live long enough to see the advice changing.

Mary x
 
Pssst..Mary..if you are referring to the post above yours, I'm Angie not Lucy! :lol:

Great email. one leads to more and the message will gradually get through.
 
ladybird64 said:
Pssst..Mary..if you are referring to the post above yours, I'm Angie not Lucy! :lol:

Great email. one leads to more and the message will gradually get through.
Click to expand...


:oops: lol

hi angie x
 
So many great comments.

It just seems so strange to me that the official advice seems so at odds with people's actual experience. If it wasn't for this site and Gretchen Becker's book, I would have followed the official advice and I am sure I would not have managed to control my BG in the same way. If I follow the NHS advice and eat all those carbs, I get peaks in my BG levels. The NHS seems to be saying that these peaks don't matter. But all the evidence is that they do.

I wish they would have a more open approach and say that there are a number of different options as regards both diet and exercise. But the best thing you can do is get a meter and test yourself - because everyone is different. I am fed up of seeing pictures of the 'EatWell Plate' :roll: showing that 33% of your diet shouldbe bread/rice/potatoes/pasta.

One doctor I spoke to days after diagnosis said that there was no point in getting a meter - what would I do with the numbers when I got them? I tried to explain.

I just hope that people who get diagnosed manage to find their way to this site or other similar ones that will give them this good advice.
 
Hi all

I have now had diabetes for 14 years with no complications. As we all know, all our bodies are different. I do eat carbs and have maintained my status from diagnosis on my version of the NHS diet. I guess I could low carb but I like the diet that works for me and that fits in with my partner's diet (well apart from some puddings!). It makes life much simpler in my view.

Carbs are not toxic for us all.

Regards

Doug
 
Osidge said:
Hi all

I have now had diabetes for 14 years with no complications. As we all know, all our bodies are different. I do eat carbs and have maintained my status from diagnosis on my version of the NHS diet. I guess I could low carb but I like the diet that works for me and that fits in with my partner's diet (well apart from some puddings!). It makes life much simpler in my view.

Carbs are not toxic for us all.

Regards

Doug
Click to expand...

Don't know about toxic Doug but they don't do us many favours! :D I eat carbs too but much reduced from what I started with. I tested my levels (which is generally discouraged as you know) and found out that a lot of the "safe" foods were pushing my levels up into dangerous figures. It really is a no-brainer to me, to continue to base my diet around carbs will result in more of the same, not a improvement in my health. I have tried it and it doesn't work. I honestly cannot see the problem with HCP's informing patients that it would be beneficial if they do reduce their carbs..it isn't going to make them worse is it?

You mention "your" version of the NHS diet, how have you adapted it to suit yourself?
 
Hi Ladybird

I suspect that my version has more fruit in it and I will more often than not have some fruit as my pudding replacement - unless it is a sugar-free pudding. I always have a sugar-free Xmas cake too :thumbup: I am within the non-diabetic HbA1c range but do not feel it necessary to so change my diet so I can get lower than that.

Regards

Doug
 
Osidge said:
Hi all

I have now had diabetes for 14 years with no complications. As we all know, all our bodies are different. I do eat carbs and have maintained my status from diagnosis on my version of the NHS diet. I guess I could low carb but I like the diet that works for me and that fits in with my partner's diet (well apart from some puddings!). It makes life much simpler in my view.

Carbs are not toxic for us all.

Regards

Doug
Click to expand...

That's a good result Doug, but I note that you inject bydureon which is an insulin-stimulating drug a bit like a long-term byetta. Nothing wrong with that, but for people who wish to remain on diet only with or without metformin, the story with carbs is a little different in that they wouldn't be able to eat as many carbs with the same end BG result.
 
Osidge said:
I am within the non-diabetic HbA1c range but do not feel it necessary to so change my diet so I can get lower than that.
Click to expand...

The point surely is that 'eat to your meter' is the rule; you obviously have some good pancreatic function and that's obviously good; it means you can tolerate more carbohydrate than others. There must be a spectrum of pancreatic function and it's essential to find our where one is on that spectrum. That's why it's appalling advice to newly diagnosed Type 2's not to test their blood sugars.

As to the other point; I think that the NHS advice comes from this type of thinking; (a) the key cause of death for diabetics is heart attacks (b) fat is bad for your heart (c) many diabetics have inhibited kidney function (b) protein and inhibited kidney function do not mix THEREFORE eat the last food group, carbohydrates, as your principal source of calories.

I don't think it is a conspiracy or sinister deals with sugary corporations.

Also, that approach is based upon viewing an illness from the point of view of the population (as in how your would treat an epidemic; the individual is less important that the entire population being treated). I remember hearing a consultant saying that glucose levels were not really relevant; it was blood pressure that was the key problem. That is madness in my view but it is from the position of approaching the end stage of diabetes complications and saying how would we like the population as a whole to behave to avoid heart attacks and kidney failure? Because as we know diabetes is progressive right? :crazy:

As individuals we know that that line of thinking is deeply flawed; I think it is better to think of diabetes as a mechanism by which your blood sugar levels are elevated, so if you get your blood sugars down it is irrelevant. There are no consequences of having diabetes whilst having normal blood sugar levels (other than ongoing management).

How do most of us get normal blood sugars? Drop the carbs*, which means eat the protein, and eat the fat.

Best

Dillinger

*to a level that results in normal blood sugars
 
I had to go for my fasting bloodtest this morning with one of the nurses at the surgery. Am not taking medication of any kind and only been diagnosed about 4 months. Mentioned that I was doing low carb and OMG she didn't like it. Told her that it works for me and keeps my blood sugars much more under control and why after telling you in one breath thats carbs are the only thing that turns into glucose, do they tell you with the next breath that you have to eat at least 130g of carbs per day! Are they mad? She wasnt amused and went on to say that the Atkins style diet causes kidney failure, told her there was no proof of that and went on to say that if I dont look after my diabetes then I would probably end up with kidney failure anyway! Duh!

Told her I am going to continue what I am doing because IT WORKS!

Got to go see diabetic nurse on wednesday for a checkup and then the doc - will see what these two have to say. Not that I care cos am going to continue with low carb anyway.
 
test-positive
The health cae professions truly believe their advice and that's why th3ey keep upping doses of medication.
If their advice doesn't work, hey blame the patient forbeing "non-compliant".However there are now a few "experts" who accept that low carb or at least Controlled carbs does work and is safe and easy to stick to. Also htey reject the evidence, because they say it hasn't been tested long term. They shut their eyes to the fact that their method certainly doesn't work and that we have a shocking rate of complications in this country. Amputations, blindness etc.
Hana
 
If a diet only T2 wants to take a psychological view that carbohydrates are "toxic" as they find it's a good way of resisting temptations and keep their control within the "eat to your meter" concept then I personally see no harm it it and I also don't see why they can't espouse that view to others as they are simply telling others what works for them.

In reality it just a different way of saying "eat less rice" or similar carbohydrate heavy foods.

If the same person were giving up smoking or alcohol and took a similar view that doing those things was dangerous to their health then I don't see many would find that objectionable if they said that tobacco or alcohol were toxic.
 
xyzzy said:
If a diet only T2 wants to take a psychological view that carbohydrates are "toxic" as they find it's a good way of resisting temptations and keep their control within the "eat to your meter" concept then I personally see no harm it it and I also don't see why they can't espouse that view to others as they are simply telling others what works for them.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain that much above 160g a day carbohydrates are toxic to everyone apart from athletes, in the same way that too much protein is toxic.*

*the same thing doesn't apply to fat.
 
I would suggest, with the greatest respect to everybody, that we do not get into the tit for tat debate.

There has been recent debate about threads getting sidetracked and derailed. As mods are now moving quickly to halt and threads that become troublesome then I believe that if we disagree with a decision made, we PM the global moderators and copy admin into the PM.

Let's not do it here lest the thread succeeds in getting derailed and we lose the bigger picture eh? :thumbup:
 
ladybird64 said:
I would suggest, with the greatest respect to everybody, that we do not get into the tit for tat debate.
Click to expand...

+1 - I quite agree, but I don't think there is any disagreement here really? We all seem to be dealing with the OP's original point about why there is this distance between what works and what the NHS says.

Best

Dillinger
 
Yes Dillinger but I am very aware that I would hate the thread to be derailed again. Any opposition to it being locked (and the reaspon why) should really be discussed off forum.

FWIW - I think it's a useful and polite debate. Generally. So that's why I ask for any attempts to send it off course are ignored and any decisions taken that we don't agree with kept to PM's.

Peace out. :mrgreen: :wave:
 
Dillinger answered the OP's original question long time ago (in what is the best post I ever read on DCUK):

Dillinger said:
This is an example of the cognitive dissonance; the NHS believes strongly that people should have a low fat diet; that means you have to eat more carbohydrate and protein. Diabetics in particular have a greater propensity to heart disease and elevated blood pressure to they should in particular eat less fat (to help their hearts) and less protein (to protect their kidneys from high blood pressure) so that means eating carbohydrate. Which should make everything fine.
(snip)
I suppose one reason why blood testing is frowned upon is that it will constantly expose the NHS approach as nonsense, and it's expensive (in the short term), so you can pour oil on the water and safe money by just getting everyone to stop doing it, shut up and eat your high fibre granary bread with low fat spread and the problem will go away. That is until the diabetic you are treating dies, or goes blind, suffers kidney failure or loses a limb or two, but at least no one was rocking the boat...
Click to expand...

I stronly recommend that you read the whole thing if you have time:
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=26856&p=248082&hilit=dissonance#p248082
 
I just read Dillingers original post from February and it really does sum things up including my own experiences,when I was first diagnosed and the appalling advice I was given.
I would have been stuffed without this forum because,naievly,I believed everything I was told by the nurse at first.
 
borofergie said:
Dillinger answered the OP's original question long time ago (in what is the best post I ever read on DCUK):
Click to expand...

Thank you very much - I see I'm repeating myself like some drunk at a party, with each rendition getting less and less eloquent...

Ah well, it's Friday!

Have a good weekend.

Dillinger
 
The argument put forward to oppose low carb as some how unsafe really needs to be debunked once and for all. If you take what I think is still the DUK latest position statement it says for T2.

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Documents/Reports/Nutritional_guidelines200911.pdf

The total amount of carbohydrate consumed is a strong predictor of glycaemic response and monitoring total carbohydrate intake whether by use of exchanges, portions or experience-based estimation, remains a key strategy in achieving glycaemic control. (A)
Click to expand...

That (A) on the end means that statement is recognised as one of the primary things that is accepted as a top priority for diabetic care. So even DUK recognises carbohydrate is a key factor.

Now look at the same thing found in the 2011 American ADA equivilent document

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/34/Supplement_1/S11.full.pdf+html

Monitoring carbohydrate, whether by carbohydrate counting, choices, or experience-based estimation, remains a key strategy in achieving glycemic control. (A)
Click to expand...

Look familiar? In fact a lot of the UK statement is influenced by the American one. Again the (A) means a top priority thing.

BUT the Americans then define what that statement actually means in a simple statement that states what they believe is the correct carbohydrate intake per day.

The RDA for digestible carbohydrate is 130 g/day and is based on providing adequate glucose as the required fuel for the central nervous system without reliance on glucose production from ingested protein or fat
Click to expand...

So if it's safe to tell an American that 130g / day is what they should aim for why is it not safe for a British person to be told the same? Are we somehow a different type of human that needs twice that American level to survive? Not safe? Nonsense!

In straight proven fully accepted scientific terms questions do arise if you go under that 130g limit but I certainly do as do many of us. When I do that I am simply making a risk assessment of if I judge the what I feel is a remote danger of going under 130g against the known and proven dangers of running blood glucose levels too high.

In life things are rarely black or white and it's unfortunate that near enough every choice we make has some risk associated with it. We live in a risk averse society but risks are there and you just have to accept them in my opinion. Different people will take a different view on the risks they are willing to take but the current DUK position vastly over estimates the risks and actively seems to say low carb is risky when patently 250 million Americans would be told the risks, if they exist at all, only occur at levels at half of those we are told in the UK.
 
Back
Top