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

They are Playing "NICELY" with Dr Unwin

Dr Unwin is amazing.

I received am email te NICE guidelines being updated. I tried to register to voice my opinion but only open to organisations it seems. Gutted!

NICE has launched a two-week series of consultations on updates to its guidelines covering type 1, type 2, diabetes in children and management of feet in diabetes.

Four separate public consultations opened on Thursday, 25 April, and will run until Wednesday, 8 May.
 
I was listening to the same podcast last night. The infographic is such a clear, simple tool it begs the question why a committee of boffins couldn't have come up with something similar a long, long time ago.
And the answer? Because these boffins are no longer used to working with real people in the real world, that's why.
 
Debandez said:
Dr Unwin is amazing.

I received am email te NICE guidelines being updated. I tried to register to voice my opinion but only open to organisations it seems. Gutted!

NICE has launched a two-week series of consultations on updates to its guidelines covering type 1, type 2, diabetes in children and management of feet in diabetes.

Four separate public consultations opened on Thursday, 25 April, and will run until Wednesday, 8 May.
Click to expand...

Debandez, do you have a link to the consultative document?
 
Guzzler said:
I was listening to the same podcast last night. The infographic is such a clear, simple tool it begs the question why a committee of boffins couldn't have come up with something similar a long, long time ago.
And the answer? Because these boffins are no longer used to working with real people in the real world, that's why.
Click to expand...
Got to say much as I admire Dr Unwin and his goals, I personally find these graphics more confusing than helpful. Why does it all need comparing back to a teaspoon of sugar? And why are gi and gl on there? where does the random 120g portion size come from?

I find the simple per 100g (%) listing the simplest and most flexible measure but then I guess the more tools in the box that get the low carb message across, especially within the nhs, the better.
 
HSSS said:
Got to say much as I admire Dr Unwin and his goals, I personally find these graphics more confusing than helpful. Why does it all need comparing back to a teaspoon of sugar? And why are gi and gl on there? where does the random 120g portion size come from?

I find the simple per 100g (%) listing the simplest and most flexible measure but then I guess the more tools in the box that get the low carb message across, especially within the nhs, the better.
Click to expand...

Dr Unwin adopted this approach because his patients could identify with a spoonful of sugar, whereas gramms of carbs meant little. It's easy to visualise a pile of sugar, but less easy to visualise a carb.
 
HSSS said:
Got to say much as I admire Dr Unwin and his goals, I personally find these graphics more confusing than helpful. Why does it all need comparing back to a teaspoon of sugar? And why are gi and gl on there? where does the random 120g portion size come from?

I find the simple per 100g (%) listing the simplest and most flexible measure but then I guess the more tools in the box that get the low carb message across, especially within the nhs, the better.
Click to expand...

I think it goes something like this, we learn that under normal circumstances that there's roughly a teaspoon of sugar (4-5g) in the body at one time. So using the teaspoon method one can easily visualise doubling or tripling that amount by having a bicky or a cuppa or both. This quick ref then makes counting carbs a concept even easier to understand. For example, I used this to point out just how much sugar there is in a can of Monster to my son, he got it straight away. I did not have to explain or use unfamiliar terms, he just got it.

As to GI/GL imo it is superfluous to those of us with T2, a bit like counting calories again just imo.
 
I agree, a teaspoon of sugar is instantly recognisable to everyone, and everyone knows that sugar is bad for diabetes. Not everyone knows what a carb is, never mind how many grams there are in a particular food.

I also agree the GI/GL concept is irrelevant to T2s. It never worked for me.
 
Yeah I acknowledge it works for some, maybe most actually and I’m the exception - but then I’m not a visual thinker at all (aphantasic in fact). And as I said whatever works is good!

My only hesitation is it may perpetuate the myth it’s only sugar that diabetics need be concerned about rather than educating people that it’s all carbs.
 
HSSS said:
Yeah I acknowledge it works for some, maybe most actually and I’m the exception - but then I’m not a visual thinker at all (aphantasic in fact). And as I said whatever works is good!

My only hesitation is it may perpetuate the myth it’s only sugar that diabetics need be concerned about rather than educating people that it’s all carbs.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly about using the word sugar instead of glucose but this too can be explained in very simplified terms. I have always found it easier to learn a new concept through analogy, plots and graphs leave me cold and to this day when I'm viewing lectures that arn't even moderately techy I still have to wait for the summing up. We all learn in different ways and although being patronised is one of my pet hates I do think that at diagnosis to speak to the most simple idea is best.
 
Back
Top