UK Diabetes Cases A Record 3 Million

[Knightwatch]

Diabetes UK have published an article as above in todays Scottish Daily Record page 14 they give figures for numbers with Type 1 & Type 2 Diabetes & cost to NHS - Number of Deaths etc & how they have teamed up with Tesco to raise £10 million to tackle the disease & raise public awarness.

Diabetes UK is not the only Charity that is struggling due to the UK Government Cutbacks & although I am Type 2 Diabetic myself there is only so much one can do to support any charity these days wither close to your own situation or because you beleive in the work/research that charity has undertaken, so what do Charities think public can do with cuts to Welfare Benifit/Bedroom Tax etc/Poor Wages/Unemployment/Cuts to NHS - The priority at the momment is self preservation, as no one knows what cutbacks the UK Government are going to impose next.

Perhaps all the Charities should be protesting to the UK Government together instead of hoping that Businesses/Public can help resolve the situation especially when on Andrew Marr Show yesterday William Haig was proudly announcing UK would again be giving assistance to Syria in the form of Radios/Bullet Proof Vests other Aid & athough no weapons/military aid was being given at this time it was something that could not be overlooked & asked how long this aid would be given he replied as long as it takes, so where is this money coming from, when we cannot support the UK's own Troops/Welfare State/NHS etc & that further cutbacks for UK will be presented in Parliment today.

I always thought Charity began at home, not to countries who decided to go to War through their own civil unrest & poor Government Controls - indeed many of these countries which were part of the Commonwealth were given Independance & yet UK Government is the first port of contact when there is trouble.

So come on UK Diabetes - while it is concerning how Diabetes is on the increase & causing early death - don't just hold out the empty hand to Businesses who have their own problems/General Public to sort out the empty pockets of the Charity indeed perhaps there is a need to look at the Home Front first - as I remember many years ago when I was unemployed & looking for a new position another leading Charity at that time was offering a salary of £30k for the position of "Fund Raiser"

Meanwhile like many others I will continue to help either my chosen Charities or those applicable to my own Health Problems as & when - unforunately £10 million is out with my reach & certainly out with anybody's reach under current climate

 

[Daibell]

Well, it's not surprising that db is on the increase when we are surrounded by organisations who continue to say 'have a normal diet' or 'eat starchy carbs with every meal' and blame fats salt and perhaps sugar for everything. This nonsense helps no-one and adds to the numbers. I include on this list the NHS, DUK and many health related companies. So, it's not money that these charities need so much as an approach based on good modern science.

 

[AMBrennan]

So, it's not money that these charities need so much as an approach based on good modern science.

Then I suggest you forward any meta analysis conclusively finding that low carb cures diabetes to the NHS, or do you think a self-selecting sample on the forums and followers of charismatic low-carb advocates constitutes science?

It's not science you want but "common-sense" treatment that comes with a nice story like "we are designed to eat low carb because prae-historic man used to eat mostly meat"

 

[lucylocket61]

Then I suggest you forward any meta analysis conclusively finding that low carb cures diabetes to the NHS,

No one, no where has even suggested that low carb cures diabetes. But there are ways to reduce the effect of diabetes in type 2 (which is the only type I can talk about) and one of those tool is to reduce carbohydrates. It is a method which worked very well for decades. It is a method which works well for many type 2's today.

All that is being asked is that the anecdotal evidence of the benefits of restricting carbohydrate intake to ones own personal safe level, found by using a meter to test before and after meals, is subjected to proper trials.

Why do you have to be so aggressive and confrontational in rubbishing every single mention of low carbing?
You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions. But others are also entitled to respect.

 

[AMBrennan]

Why do you have to be so aggressive and confrontational in rubbishing every single mention of low carbing?

It's not low-carbing but the relentless NHS bashing that does rather annoy me - you wouldn't do your own plumbing but many people still believe that they know more than all the experts in the field.

What's more, plenty of low-carb advocates online present laughably flawed arguments (e.g. paleo) but because the Internet is now more trusted than your GP there is a risk that desperate people will take it at face value. I don't feel that I can be a member of this site and stand idly by when that happens.

All that is being asked is that the anecdotal evidence of the benefits of restricting carbohydrate intake to ones own personal safe level, found by using a meter to test before and after meals, is subjected to proper trials.

That's not what's happening - plenty of people are advocating low-carb right now and blaming the NHS recommending a relatively high carb diet for the diabetes epidemic *without a shred of evidence* to show that their preferred alternative is any better.

What's worse, supporting unproven low-carb shifts the blame firmly to the victim - you have an intervention that might not even work, but if it doesn't work then it's probably because they didn't follow the diet properly. Would it not be preferable to be honest and admit that we don't know which diet is best?

Low carb is a recurring diet fad and hardly a new idea (e.g. "Letter on Corpulence Addressed to the Public" published in 1863) and it is big business today (e.g. Atkins brand bars sold at Boots).

 

[Yorksman]

It's not science you want but "common-sense" treatment that comes with a nice story like "we are designed to eat low carb because prae-historic man used to eat mostly meat"

Not on Marsden Moor he didn't. It's one of the richest areas for finding flints in the UK. We find charred hazelnuts in the hearths, not animal bones, even though this was their summer hunting ground. They ate the meat of the animals they hunted there but the primary needs were for fur, bone, antler and sinew. They couldn't obtain these materials in their winter grounds on the coast. They collected the flint from the Yorkshire Wolds whilst on their their way from the coast to the summer camps. Sustenance was primarily by way of foraging. At their summer camp they used to napp the flint and hunt the animals that came up from the wooded valleys to graze on the upper pastures. They probably took some meat back with them but generally they would be burdened by the pelts antler and bone.

The amount of effort required by man to kill large animal prey is considerable and comes at a great risk. That's why such kills were treated with reverence. Hunter gatherers always had riverine, lacustrine or esturine bases because there was an abundance of fish, shellfish, wildfowl and edible plantlife. Moreover, the nature of the flint finds suggests that small prey, rather than large prey was the primary quarry. Hunter gatherers moved around the landscape eating a wide selection of foods. That's why their diets were 'balanced'. It was the only way they would get essentials like calcium, salt or iodine. The image of groups of hominids chasing mammoth over cliff edges probably has more to do with Neanderthals who tended to stay in one place and trap what came through their area than modern human who was mobile and opportunistic. Without foraging for things like wild grasses, agriculture would not have been invented.

 

[Daibell]

Hi AMBrennan. The point I am making is not that low-carb is the panacea but if you research the NHS/Professional documents that track back to 'have starchy carbs with every meal' and similar you will find one from the Royal College of Surgeons 2008 that says 'low-carbohydrate diets were noted to be of unproven safety in the long term and thus could not be endorsed' whereas I think it's reasonably well proven that todays 'standard' diet high in carbs and fats in Western society is downright bad for you, so to me this is bad science. There are other documents that say the brain needs carbs for energy which from a metabolic viewpoint isn't true. There is a further misunderstanding as to what 'starchy' means. If you are able to define this word for me please do. Starchy foods when uncooked can be very good for you. When cooked and broken down they can be high-GI and the experts seem unable to spot the difference. Fortunately NICE now has and talks, correctly, about low-GI carbs in the latest Pathways doc. So in summary many NHS professionals and Dieticians would rather advocate a proven unhealthy standard diet than one that has yet to proved safe; that to me is not good science particularly when the way the body metabolises carbs is fairly well understood and this forum has literally hundreds of posts supporting the effects of low-carbs. Ref NHS bashing I could list many silly comments from my own Diabetes GPs over the years e.g. 'you should not be starving yourself - have a normal diet' when I'm standing there underweight desperately trying to avoid very high sugar levels and the following year being told 'insulin is a last resort when I asked for it to be added'. Fortunately I am being treated by a superb DN now I'm finally on insulin, the GP having realised that insulin is actually a valid solution when needed. Please remember that many Diabetes GPs and DNs are by definition generalists who may have had only very limited diabetes training before being labelled; they may well be excellent GPs and nurses. Many of us can become reasonable experts on our very narrow bit of medicine i.e. diabetes just as there are some plumbing jobs I can do and many I wouldn't/shouldn't.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

An interesting and thought provoking post Knightwatch, unfortunately our Government have a balancing act to do and whilst they would love to fund development into all the health issues that we face today there clearly is just not enough money in the coffers to do that which is why charities like Daibetes UK do such great work.

'low-carbohydrate diets were noted to be of unproven safety in the long term and thus could not be endorsed' whereas I think it's reasonably well proven that todays 'standard' diet high in carbs and fats in Western society is downright bad for you, so to me this is bad science.

Low carb diets have been found to be useful in the "short term" Diabell, unfortunately they are not so useful in the long term as most people are simply unable to stick to a very low carb diet long term as witnessed here by anyone who has been a member here here for more than a couple of years, time and time again we see those on a very low carb diet say that their "weight loss has stalled" or that they "fell off the wagon" even some that have put back most of the weight that they lost initially on a low carb diet, others who recommend a diet that does not work for them yet still pioneer the low carb ethos.

Far from being well proven that todays "standard" diet (whatever that is) has been found to be downright bad for you it has been proven many times that the best diet is one that contains all food groups, how can it be better to eat a very low carb diet that then needs to be supplemented with vitamins and minerals that are lacking with out carbs?

The best and most healthy diet for anyone is a nutritious balanced diet eaten in moderation, no one has ever said its a good idea to eat gallons of Coke and extra large meals from fast food outlets. Carbs are not dangerous if eaten in moderation just as fat is not dangerous if eaten in moderation just as protein is not dangerous if........etc

I dont see anything wrong with the advice to eat carbs with every meal given by the NHS but no NHS advice has ever said pig out and eat as much as you like in fact most advice given to newly diagnosed diabetics tells them to lose weight as 80% of newly diagnosed diabetics are over weight. Even those slim T2's can have visceral fat and you cant remove visceral fat by over indulging in fat or carbs.

I dont think anyone here would say dont restrict carbs to some degree but there is no reason to keep repeating the inaccurate information given out by some in order to reinforce the benefits of a diet which most will never stick to and which most find does not work for long term weight loss.

 

[Yorksman]

Far from being well proven that todays "standard" diet (whatever that is) has been found to be downright bad for you it has been proven many times that the best diet is one that contains all food groups, how can it be better to eat a very low carb diet that then needs to be supplemented with vitamins and minerals that are lacking with out carbs?

There is no such thing as a 'standard diet' as human populations have, through evolutionary selective advantage, become adapted to their local diet and lifestyle. Most northern europeans (80% - 90%) continue to produce the enzyme lactase which allows milk to be digested in adulthood, most southern europeans do not and enzyme production stops shortly after puberty. Bedouin also continue to produce lactase, needed to digest camel milk, but in this case the genes responsible are different from those in northern europe. The cattle rearing Tutsi tribe in sub-saharan Africa too produce lactase in adulthood. Again a different gene is responsible.

Most europeans would eventually die of internal bleeding if they suddenly switched to an inuit diet of blood and meat for a long time, typically high in fat and low in carbohydrates. Inuit are adapted to their diets. Nor is a typically westernised low carb high fat diet the same as an inuit diet. The trace elements are different. A Saami meal of marrow from a reindeer bone roasted on an open fire would make most northern europeans quite ill. It is too rich for our digestive system which tends to reject it through vomiting or diarrhea. People are different and what is good for one is not necessarily good for another. That's how evolution works.

 

[MCMLXXIII]

We adapt.
As does Diabetes.:roll:
Interesting thread thanks

Sent from my KFTT using DCUK Forum mobile app

 

[Daibell]

Hi Sid

I agree with you ref very low carb; I normally only say low-carb. I have had to stick to my low-carb/low portion diet over the last 5+ years as it has been the only way to keep my HBa1C anyway reasonable even with 3 tablets types. Yes, we are all different and for some just a sensible reduction in portion size and small reduction in carbs is enough but for others an aggressive approach is needed together with meds.