1. Get the Diabetes Forum App for your phone - available on iOS and Android.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the Diabetes Forum Survey 2021 »
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Diabetes Forum should not be used in an emergency and does not replace your healthcare professional relationship. Posts can be seen by the public.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Guest, stay home, stay safe, save the NHS. Stay up to date with information about keeping yourself and people around you safe here and GOV.UK: Coronavirus (COVID-19). Think you have symptoms? NHS 111 service is available here.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Join the community »

The Cure for Type 2 Diabetes

Discussion in 'Diabetes Soapbox - Have Your Say' started by carefix, Jan 2, 2008.

  1. Sid Bonkers

    Sid Bonkers Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,976
    Likes Received:
    1,102
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Personally I dont agree with Gary Taubs at all and think his theories are mostly all wrong, carbohydrates dont make you fat unless you eat too many just like everything else and as for fat not making you fat I know from my own diet that when I increased my fat intake I put on weight, just as I did over xmas.

    To often people read about low carb high fat and get it all wrong, as I have posted many times it is pointless increasing your fat intake unless you are in ketosis ie eating under 30g of carbs a day if you are eating more carbs that and increase your fat intake the fat is not burned as energy it is stored as fat.

    I dont think anyone would argue that Taubs 's views are controversial and controversial as we all know is rarely right, and please dont bother posting about Galileo Galilei borofergie as for every genius there are millions of nutters who are simply wrong just as I believe Taubs is wrong in most of his assumptions.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. mbudzi

    mbudzi · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    28
    John

    I need a Noddy guide to understanding Trans Fats. Can you point me at a beginners guide to understanding fats so that I can begin to follow some of the stuff on here and the papers you reference? I'm skeptical about looking for my own papers as you seem to have unearthed a few that are not telling the whole truth.

    Thanks
     
  3. al_leister

    al_leister Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I don’t think I will be supping the three oils.

    Drug companies however cannot patent 3 oils therefore would definitely not be interested in cures they can’t make money from.
    Most people do not realise that drug companies have one purpose one goal….to make money.
    Drug companies do not exist to find cures.
    A large percentage of drug trials and those that make it to the journals and then to “market” leave out a lot of important information on the negative effects on patients. All legal of course.

    Stupidity is rampant amongst the masses. See links below:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... olite-left

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... acist.html
     
  4. xyzzy

    xyzzy Other · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,950
    Likes Received:
    771
    Trophy Points:
    153
    So all the scientists and importantly students who do the majority of the research actively colude with governments and companies taking bribes to falsify results for their own personal gain.

    What a totally offensive and warped attitude you have to life. :crazy:
     
  5. al_leister

    al_leister Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So all the scientists and importantly students who do the majority of the research actively colude with governments and companies taking bribes to falsify results for their own personal gain.

    What a totally offensive and warped attitude you have to life

    Of course not all but some do, set out to reach a particular conclusion that the drug company would like to hear. It is the drug company who funds the research.

    Bit like the prevailing ethos at some of our newspapers.
    Editors, reporters, labour gov, conservative gov, met police, big business: Christ the list goes on.

    I think describing the above as offensive is a little childish.

    All the best.
     
  6. borofergie

    borofergie Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,169
    Likes Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Funnily enough, that's what Taubes says too...

    Nothing to do with the two tins of Celebrations then?

    It's just simple maths Sid...

    4kcal per gram of carb.
    30g of carbs = 120kcal
    100g of carbs = 400kcal
    150g of carbs = 600kcal

    Recommended average energy consumption* for men is 2550 kcal/day. 45-60% of this is supposed to come from carbs (55% would be 350g of carbohydrate). Even if you ate 150g of Carbohydrate per day (a la Grazer) you'd still be looking for nearly 2000 kcal from protein and fat.

    If you want to keep your enery consumption constant, while not increasing your fat intake, as you suggest, then you'd have to add an extra 200g of protein to your diet - about the same as 10 eggs. That's on top of the 80g a day that you're supposed to be eating as part of a balanced diet. Do you really put away 280g of protein every day?

    It's much easier to consume this energy by increasing both your fat intake (9 kcal/g) and your protein intake (4 kcal/g), especialy because most protein rich food contains fat too.

    *(even if you were completely sedentary, then you'd still be burning more that 1500kcal/day).

    But then you know all this...

    I have a long list of "nutters". Sir Frank Whittle is probably my favourite.

    You might disagree with his concluisions, but it would be difficult to disagree with most of Taubes assumptions...

    But all of this is just proving my original point. It's easy just to call someone a nutter and dismiss their ideas. There isn't really any point in flogging this dead horse.
     
  7. al_leister

    al_leister Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Research funded by drug companies is 'biased'

    Just one link of many I could source if i had the time today.
    Excellent one a couple of years ago on radio 4. 11 out of 14 trials/research funded by drug company. Will try to find it. Got a lot of bad press at the time.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3 ... iased.html
     
  8. Sid Bonkers

    Sid Bonkers Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,976
    Likes Received:
    1,102
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Probably quite a lot yes, now how much fat is in a tin of chocs [​IMG]

    Is that the same for a 25 year old athlete and a 65 year old sedentary male and what about a female??? More useless statistics, the truth is that most people in the west eat way too much which is why incidentally 50% of them are obese/overweight.

    No, its easier just to eat less food, perhaps you should give it a try :D


    No its easy I've already said I disagree with most of what he says, perhaps you missed that part of my post :roll:

    No, none at all but its you who is flogging the Taubs thing I just said I disagreed with him its you who is continually trying to justify what he says is right [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Sid Bonkers

    Sid Bonkers Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,976
    Likes Received:
    1,102
    Trophy Points:
    178
    I beleive that every Registrar has to undergo a year of clinical research before they can become a Consultant and I dont think that is financed by the big Pharma, what about charity's like cancer research? Sorry but there is lots of research done outside of the pharmaceutical industry.
     
  10. xyzzy

    xyzzy Other · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,950
    Likes Received:
    771
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Surely it depends on the research and who does it and who reports its results. If research is biased because a drug company wants it that way then its not good science and is just as bad as any nutty alternative therapy claim....

    Except for one thing...

    When its bad science then it has normally been examined and proven bad by other scientists who want to keep the reputation of science good, so for example your last link was from a article in the New Scientist! i.e. scientists policing other scientists results. This is exactly how science works and how progress is made. Why are you shocked at this?

    When alternative therapists and their ilk make their claims who polices them? Why are they so defensive when it comes to having their products tested rigorously? Why should I believe them not to be just as corrupt and pocket lining as a corrupt pocket lining drug company?

    Please be careful with accusations of corruption. I do agree that the profit motive can corrupt companies however that is not the same as saying it corrupts science. Much research is done by professors and their students at universities around the world and yes it maybe funded by private business but implying that all those professors and students take bribes is a very offensive statement and one I hope you are not making. It's also down right silly :crazy:

    Just remember that it was a scientist who invented insulin treatment of diabetics not an alternative therapist. Come to that it was a scientist who invented TV, DVD's computers, iPads, cars, aeroplanes, the wheel and fire. You name it a scientist invented it so please show us some respect.
     
  11. borofergie

    borofergie Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,169
    Likes Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Of course you're right Sid. I apologise unreservedly for mentioning his name after you so elegantly disproved his theories.
     
  12. Patch

    Patch Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    103
    :wave:

    Hi everybody!

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Helenababe

    Helenababe · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    800
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Hi Patch. Have they 'let you off'? :)

    Heck, is that pic 'you'?? You didn't tell us you were a frazzled old doctor! :lol:

    Helena
     
  14. Patch

    Patch Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    103
    I don't know what you mean...

    I'm not! (Old, or a Doctor...)
     
  15. Helenababe

    Helenababe · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    800
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
  16. Patch

    Patch Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    103
    S'okay. I forgive you. :thumbup:
     
  17. ladybird64

    ladybird64 Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,731
    Likes Received:
    1,904
    Trophy Points:
    178

    You posted a link to a website, I highlighted the issues that concerned me. I did not talk about the Budwig protocol, I commented on the topics of a site which YOU posted. If I choose to speak of my daughter and granddaughter that is my prerogative..my comments were in direct response to the paragraphs which I copied and pasted. I stand absolutely by what I said and I do consider someone who would write such unsubstantiated comments about young babies with brain damage expects comments. I still think HE not YOU is a moron.

    I did not make any personal remarks about your intelligence or intellect..to do that IS personal, aimed directly at you. Please show me where I insulted you PERSONALLY.

    This was your reply.

    FAO of Ladybird & Xzzy - It seems I was completely wrong re. Budwig and Cancertutor, forgive me for trying these alternative treatments, if only I was as well educated as you so obviously are. It must give you enormous pleasure to belittle uneducated, desperate people like myself, please forgive me for insulting your superior intellects, I will refrain from posting any more buffoonery.dodd4721


    I consider this aimed at me, Xzzy is mentioned but that's between you and him. This is a big forum, you post where you want and I will be sure to avoid answering any of your posts, not a problem. It is not my intention to make anyone feel bad regardless of what you think but you post a link publically, then you invite opinion, sometimes strong opinions. Where I think something is completely wrong I will say so and will always give my reasons why. I take great care in my posts not to make personal comments, if I disagree with something posted I say so but am never rude to the poster.

    I did so on your post. I extended an olive branch. I am genuinely sorry if you felt unwelcome but I will not apologise for what I wrote in direct response to what I read on the Cancertutor site regarding the issues that I raised in respect to diabetes and brain damage caused by aspartame.

    I have got nothing more to add now, I genuinely wish you and your wife well for the future and wish you both good health and success in whatever way you decide to look after yourselves.
     
  18. Patch

    Patch Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    103
  19. alliebee

    alliebee · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,486
    Likes Received:
    6,465
    Trophy Points:
    158
  20. al_leister

    al_leister Type 2 · Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Response to ZYZZY

    so for example your last link was from a article in the New Scientist! i.e. scientists policing other scientists results. This is exactly how science works and how progress is made. Why are you shocked at this?

    u]I am in no way shocked at this and made no hint that I was.[/u]

    When alternative therapists and their ilk make their claims who polices them? Why are they so defensive when it comes to having their products tested rigorously? Why should I believe them not to be just as corrupt and pocket lining as a corrupt pocket lining drug company?

    They should be policed and should not be defensive regarding the testing of their products. Of course they can be just as corrupt.

    Much research is done by professors and their students at universities around the world and yes it maybe funded by private business but implying that all those professors and students take bribes is a very offensive statement and one I hope you are not making. It's also down right silly

    I certainly did not imply that “all” professors and students take bribes. I did not even mention the words professors/students.

    Just remember that it was a scientist who invented insulin treatment of diabetics not an alternative therapist. Come to that it was a scientist who invented TV, DVD's computers, iPads, cars, aeroplanes, the wheel and fire. You name it a scientist invented it so please show us some respect.

    Most scientists are good/great people. I have not said anything to the contrary. Calm down ZYZZY. You are sailing in the silly sea. Read my posts carefully before launching your response.

    As per my first post, I will certainly not be supping the three oils.

    Of course the fact remains; Drug companies exist and operate to make a profit not to supply drugs that cure illness.
     
  • Meet the Community

    Find support, connect with others, ask questions and share your experiences with people with diabetes, their carers and family.

    Did you know: 7 out of 10 people improve their understanding of diabetes within 6 months of being a Diabetes Forum member. Get the Diabetes Forum App and stay connected on iOS and Android

    Grab the app!
  • Tweet with us

  • Like us on Facebook