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

What is the story with Diabetes UK?

I do attend a local group from DUK, I feel this gives me a chance to talk to others about how I have got control of my diabetes. I didn't set out to do do low carb, I tested before and 2 hours after each meal, recording quantities and nutritional info as well as blood sugar readings. From this I worked out what my body could manage. I did reduce the carbs but not cut them out. I feel having had normal HbA1c's for the last 2 years speaks for itself. I was not overweight at diagnosis - just under BMI 25 but lost 2 and a half stone which was considered too much so I have put back on almost a stone and still keeping reasonable control of blood sugar. I feel we need to engage with other diabetics whenever we can but in a non aggressive way. What I did may not work for someone else.
 
Behind the times, i feel. It is good to question their future intentions for diabetics. All diabetics!
I agree that diabetes now affects so many people and more are being diagnosed. They have to move with the times. For sure.
They are moving with the times. If you watched the Panorama program on Diabetes, which they were heavily involved in then you will know that the only cure for T2 diabetes they recognise is bariatric surgery or amputation, It is where they see the future for us T2D, and they are like the 3 monkeys when it comes to possible alternatives.

That said, they are sponsoring the Newcastle diet, but originally it was intended to provide a simple pre-op diet as preparation for bariatric surgery, and not intended to find a cure for T2D at all. This surprised them, which is why they are unable to provide correct press releases for the ND diet,

They cannot read the report from Newcastle ac and deliver a simple, correct, interpretation, No, they have to corrupt the message Why? So that they can later turn round and show that the study results were flawed and unreliable.
 
I agree with you. I think it would be very difficult for them to put their weight behind very low carb diets as a recommendation simply because there is NO long term evidence that a low carb diet is any more beneficial than any other. If that data becomes available at some point in the future then I'm sure their advice will change accordingly. It may turn out that depriving the body has significant negative long term effects who knows? And the other point, as you said, is that they offer general advice. Most diabetics would find very low carb dieting very difficult, for some it may not work, for others it may not be recommended for medical reasons. Others may choose a more "normal" diet plus medication to keep glucose levels stable. We are all different and DUK sticks with recommended dietary advice which would suit the majority of people which will be updated in line with updated evidence. I think it's unfair to criticise they are a charity and they provide huge benefits advice and support to an ever increasing number of diabetics.
"Most diabetics would find very low carb dieting very difficult, for some it may not work, for others it may not be recommended for medical reasons. Others may choose a more "normal" diet plus medication to keep glucose levels stable."
I read recently that 37% T2 diabetics don't take their medication. General advice to follow a low carb diet might be taken up by even fewer as it takes a lot more effort than to swallow a pill. Perhaps the NHS advice to treat T2 with drugs is the best for the general population , many of whom would not be capable of counting carbs effectively. We have to remember that the people on here are computer literate and generally appear to have a high level of literacy , numeracy and education. Not everyone has.
 
But should that allow their for the most part appalling dietary advice for the majority of the people they are there to help?
if 90% of diabetics are Type 2 then maybe 60-70% of them could be helped with a low carb diet. So why will they only admit through gritted teeth that they aren't totally opposed to it. Could it maybe have something to do with the major contributors or do they just want us all dead?
Do they want us all dead? That would be killing off the goose that lays the golden eggs. No. T2D's tend to take a while to succumb, and we tend to do it a bit at a time (or limb at a time) Thus prolonging the gravy train. My experience of DUK is that they hounded me consistently for a donation after I had registered with them as needing advice and assistance, I have never in my 12 years as T2 had a positive communication from them. I have not seen a spokesperson of theirs that talked to me sensibly.
 
"Most diabetics would find very low carb dieting very difficult, for some it may not work, for others it may not be recommended for medical reasons. Others may choose a more "normal" diet plus medication to keep glucose levels stable."
I read recently that 37% T2 diabetics don't take their medication. General advice to follow a low carb diet might be taken up by even fewer as it takes a lot more effort than to swallow a pill. Perhaps the NHS advice to treat T2 with drugs is the best for the general population , many of whom would not be capable of counting carbs effectively. We have to remember that the people on here are computer literate and generally appear to have a high level of literacy , numeracy and education. Not everyone has.
All the more reason why we need independant studies such as ND and the work done by Dr Unwin in Southport to demonstrate that some diabetes can be revesed by diet alone. Once there is proper scientific evidence supporting the anecdotal evidence, then those pulling the purse strings will have to take notice. At the moment the common mantra is Its Progressive and irreversible, and those in power hide behind that because it works for them and protects them. But does not work for me!
 
I have been a nurse for 40 years, and a lot of things we recommended have changed, my dad died from heart disease at 55, my so I have been on a low fat diet most of my adult life. Like a lot of women have been on a restricted food intake, sometimes more successful than others, all my life. I can almost tell you the amount of calories in any food, I have poured over labels, and thought I had a good understanding of nutrition.
I think that nutrition has never really been taught well in schools, the professionals seem to have a need to make everything complicated, or else they out of a job, or they make the message so simple that it becomes corrupted.
Cereals are cheap, they store well, you add sugar to them and they taste yummy and then you sell them for loads of money. The profit from carbs is huge, hence why there are so many boxed cereals, biscuits, and potato based snacks. Every restaurant and fast food outlet gives you a huge dollop of carbs because it looks as if you are getting value for money, when really its just cheap filler. So food companies can make smaller profit margins basics like an egg, unless they dress it up as omega 3, or meat which is already perceived as expensive and has a shorter shelf life.
I think the carb thing started off with good intentions, when most people were T1 it made sense to manage you intake and adjust your insulin, C1980. Patients were told what to do and very few managed their own insulin and no one was really taught about diets. There were very few T2 and most were very old and to be honest very little effort was put into educating them or their family.
I sort of got the whole grain thing but it was too simple a message and sort of ended up you can eat carbs?
Our whole western diet is based on a large amounts of cheap carbs, that's why its so hard for a 'normal' person to go LC, our environment just isn't geared for it. For me LC just isn't about diabetes but its about the general health of the population, which is eating too many carbs and getting fatter, with all its health risks.
So the other site? Its fighting against tradition and what the NHS has basically supported for the last 30 +years. Its an easy message to sell, its not difficult to do and you are not teaching people to question, and answering questions is hard.
This site promotes questioning, you learn from other people, not a HCP. I can not understand what they are so afraid of, the worst that can happen is that everyone might lose weight. We already have rising T2, so can it make it worse? Most of the T1 on here seem intelligent responsible people who do not want to go out of their way to sabotage their heath and are capable of recording changes in their BS.
I do not conspiracy theories, but follow the money. The money in food, controlled by the big corporations that sell carbs at vast profits, plus all the artificial sweeteners, the low fat foods etc , do they really want you to think you can live well on eggs , meat, milk and fresh veg? Then there are the drug companies, you still get a descent buffet from a drugs rep, when they give a talk. There is very little profit in LCHF so very little money in promoting it.
 
I think it would be very difficult for them to put their weight behind very low carb diets as a recommendation simply because there is NO long term evidence that a low carb diet is any more beneficial than any other.

After 40yrs, the clear long term evidence is that the current Low Fat Low Calorie, eat less move more dietary advise and "a more "normal" diet plus medication to keep glucose levels stable approach has proven to be rather dismal, especially when many here have been able to achieved remission levels within 3-6 months of diagnosis.

http://www.diabetes.org/research-an...ss-to-research/type-2-diabetes-remission.html
Over 7 years, 1.47 percent of the entire group had a partial remission, 0.14 percent had a complete remission, and 0.007 percent had a prolonged remission. Overall, 1.60 percent of the entire group (4.6 percent of those who had been diagnosed for less than 2 years) had some sort of remission. People who were older than 65 years of age, were African American, had been diagnosed for less than 2 years, had an A1C of less than 5.7 percent at the start of the study period, or were taking no diabetes medicines at the start of the study period were more likely to have a remission.
 
Except nobody in the general population is following an high calories high carb and high fat diet. The fat intake in the USA diet remained constant from the 70s but carbohydrates intake had a constant increase after the 80s and obesity followed. If people with diabetes doesn not really switch to a sensible diet and loses weight until getting the optimal weight I am the first to expect a progressiveive worsening of the health.
 
After 40yrs, the clear long term evidence is that the current Low Fat Low Calorie, eat less move more dietary advise and "a more "normal" diet plus medication to keep glucose levels stable approach has proven to be rather dismal, especially when many here have been able to achieved remission levels within 3-6 months of diagnosis.

http://www.diabetes.org/research-an...ss-to-research/type-2-diabetes-remission.html
Im not saying that a low carb diet is wrong, on the limited short term evidence available it clearly works. I was merely pointing out that DUK do an awful lot of good work within the diabetic community and do not deserve the 'hate' they are getting from some on this site. As a national.charity they would simply be unable to offer recommendations on a diet that has no long term research done. When that changes I have no doubt their advice will change. As for the conspiracy theories about DUK being in the pockets of supermarkets and food producers that is absolute rubbish, pure speculation and unfair. Think of all the good work they do, the summer camp's for young type 1s, the clinical champions improving health care all over the country, the support and education they give. Where else would they get their money to pay for it all?
 
In a recent post on that site a well known and frequent poster said that it was not healthy for a t2 to fast. And that we should eat 3 meals a day plus snacks.
Oh my goodness!
I'm so lucky cos my DN also diabetic (20+ years)
She has lovely (unofficial!) chat on my 1st visit. It was she who suggested low carb and the forum too
 
I am in both too. I do remember stumbling on that site just after coming back from the GP and seeing the carb advice... and thinking "ok now I am confused!" But then LCHF wasn't an ideal scenario for me either - (1) because my weight had shot down already as the main symptom for my diagnosis and (2) I also needed to combat high cholesterol as well, so I focused on the GI index instead and we will find out how that worked when I get my next bloods in Friday,

I will say I enjoy bantering with people about recipes on there, but find it more informative on things like meds, combinations of meds etc here, and most of the folks are great on both, just one strange reply, but haven't heard from the person again so no bother there.
 
They are moving with the times. If you watched the Panorama program on Diabetes, which they were heavily involved in then you will know that the only cure for T2 diabetes they recognise is bariatric surgery or amputation, It is where they see the future for us T2D, and they are like the 3 monkeys when it comes to possible alternatives.

That said, they are sponsoring the Newcastle diet, but originally it was intended to provide a simple pre-op diet as preparation for bariatric surgery, and not intended to find a cure for T2D at all. This surprised them, which is why they are unable to provide correct press releases for the ND diet,

They cannot read the report from Newcastle ac and deliver a simple, correct, interpretation, No, they have to corrupt the message Why? So that they can later turn round and show that the study results were flawed and unreliable.
Gez. That is very heavy political corruption. Or course money will be the real issue. Always is!

My motto. "It all comes out in the end".
They are fighting a losing battle. The truth of low carb for type2s is pure fact.
I've now lost 3.5 stones on it, even on insulin. In 8.5mths. Now for me and my other medical conditions was medically deemed impossible without bariatric surgery.

I haven't time for medicine to catch up with low carb treatment for type2s. I still need to lose 10stones and while I'm not bedbound or incapable fully I will be still doing bariatric surgery to ferment my new weight. Banishing my 22stones forever!

I'd never be able to post that on DUK. They wouldnt get it. The posters I mean. Or at least not respond as if they did due to pressure from its politics. (I feel)

I'm happy to come here and stay in good company. I know not a competition but this forum will always be better in most medical queries as the posters are very informative and helpful.
I can see @Administrator and others maybe doing a series of forums. Bariatric surgery ones could do with a huge better one, for sure, too. Maybe ND and bariatric surgery together so posters could be the alternative IF they can do it. With better leptin resistance drugs or techniques bariatric surgery will be in decades to come, extinct, maybe.
Evolution happens regardless of politics!
 
As a national.charity they would simply be unable to offer recommendations on a diet that has no long term research done.
Can you then please lead me to the studies that are supportive of the "Eatwell Plate"? They have no trouble in advocating that way of eating with little supporting evidence apart from the flawed seven countries study (where the ones that didn't fit the conclusion were ignored).
 
I'd never be able to post that on DUK. They wouldnt get it. The posters I mean. Or at least not respond as if they did due to pressure from its politics. (I feel)
Seems to me that this is not true, and a simple search could suffice to prove that there's no problem on talking about that.
https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/search/9801849/?q=lchf&o=relevance

On the other hand I find that on this forum al lot of people is heavily biased about going low carb and don't consider other options, sometimes largely sounding like anti vaccines people with their distrust of medical science and plain advices to lie to their GPs.

Some peoples are on ketogenic or Atkins diet and is working. Good for them, other people are following a reduced carb diet, like me, and works for them.


So what? Everyone is different.
 
90% of people with diabetes are type 2 and grapes the last thing they need is to eat lots of carbs, which is what DUK advocate. Typically, people are confused when they are diagnosed and need guidance. My GP said take metformin, reduce sugar and do more exercise. Unfortunately, this is not the best advice as Metformin only reduces blood sugars marginally and just reducing sugar is not enough to bring blood glucose down to normal levels if you are also consuming a lot of carbs. Exercise can help, but is a waste of time if your diet is wrong for diabetes. New diabetes patients need good advice from sites like this, but the advice from DUK seems to be totally inappropriate and damaging to the very people they are supposed to help.

Long term high blood sugar levels can be extremely detrimental, causing blindness, foot amputations and a host of other grizzly complications. The advice DUK give will cause more type 2 people to go blind and have amputations because it is ineffective, unless their goal is to get everyone with type 2 taking insulin. The are millions of people with type 2 and the DUK advise is causing massive unnecessary suffering to diabetics and is causing extra costs to the NHS for unnecessary medications.
 
Seems to me that this is not true, and a simple search could suffice to prove that there's no problem on talking about that.
https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/search/9801849/?q=lchf&o=relevance

On the other hand I find that on this forum al lot of people is heavily biased about going low carb and don't consider other options, sometimes largely sounding like anti vaccines people with their distrust of medical science and plain advices to lie to their GPs.

Some peoples are on ketogenic or Atkins diet and is working. Good for them, other people are following a reduced carb diet, like me, and works for them.


So what? Everyone is different.
Interesting to see however that quite a few of the people in the posts are also members here.. or have been in the past..
 
Haven't looked tbh was just explaining to someone why DUK wouldn't be able to read something untested long term that deprived the body of a major macronutrient. Am sure you are a committed low carber and wish you well but for one low carbers there are hundreds more type 2s who cannot or wouldn't want to low carb. It's just not for everyone. You may think it's the only way forward. From my point of view I found it hard and repetitive and simply couldn't bear the high fat content to stop you feeling hungry. Plus it really wasn't working well enough. Now on low dose gliclazide plus moderately low carb around 150g a day. No lows or highs but stable glucose levels and no less.of weight either which is good for me as I am not overweight. Works for me and I feel so much better than I did when low carbing. Not looking for an argument here just wanted to stick up for DUK because they do some amazing work.
 
Can you then please lead me to the studies that are supportive of the "Eatwell Plate"? They have no trouble in advocating that way of eating with little supporting evidence apart from the flawed seven countries study (where the ones that didn't fit the conclusion were ignored).
Sorry my last post meant to reply to this one
Haven't looked tbh was just explaining to someone why DUK wouldn't be able to read something untested long term that deprived the body of a major macronutrient. Am sure you are a committed low carber and wish you well but for one low carbers there are hundreds more type 2s who cannot or wouldn't want to low carb. It's just not for everyone. You may think it's the only way forward. From my point of view I found it hard and repetitive and simply couldn't bear the high fat content to stop you feeling hungry. Plus it really wasn't working well enough. Now on low dose gliclazide plus moderately low carb around 150g a day. No lows or highs but stable glucose levels and no less.of weight either which is good for me as I am not overweight. Works for me and I feel so much better than I did when low carbing. Not looking for an argument here just wanted to stick up for DUK because they do some amazing work.
 
Im not saying that a low carb diet is wrong, on the limited short term evidence available it clearly works. I was merely pointing out that DUK do an awful lot of good work within the diabetic community and do not deserve the 'hate' they are getting from some on this site. As a national.charity they would simply be unable to offer recommendations on a diet that has no long term research done. When that changes I have no doubt their advice will change. As for the conspiracy theories about DUK being in the pockets of supermarkets and food producers that is absolute rubbish, pure speculation and unfair. Think of all the good work they do, the summer camp's for young type 1s, the clinical champions improving health care all over the country, the support and education they give. Where else would they get their money to pay for it all?
I see that the list of current sponsors funding DUK has already been posted in this thread. This is listed on their main site, so they are proud of their connections to the food and drug companies. They are funded by these interested parties, You seem to be living in La-La Land if you think that there really are no strings attached to that funding.

I live 6 miles away from the Regional Office of DUK. When I es DX'ed I wanted to join in with them and gain information and advice from them, but they do not hold any User Group meetings within 40 miles of me, not even in their town which is the regional centre too. They hold no seminars or training courses for users, BUT DO hold fund raising events, and once a year put on an exhibition in a local supermarket. Apart from the fundraisers, I see no presence in this area, with not a single poster in my GP surgery, or at the local hospital notice boards. My local library has no info or posters either. So in reality I find it difficult to relate to their activities (or lack of same) so for this diabetic they are a waste of time. I am sad that they habe closed their minds to all the recent research that has been published, and seem unable to move forward from where they were 15 years ago. You say that the diet is unproven and lacks formal evidence. My diet was used in the early 1900's as the only successful way ti treat T1D before insulin was discovered, and it is still in use today for treating epilepsy. It is not a new fangled fad, it has a proven track record as a medically accepted treatment until the recent HCLF advice turned nutrition on its head in the 1980's That and the great strides being made by the food and drug industries.
 
Last edited:
There is a similar thread on the other site about this site as well. Thier dislike seems to be about the fact that this site is not a charity, but in it to make money. Duk, is of course, also about making money, but that is ignored.

When I was dxd I joined both sites. This one has been infinitely more helpful. Posters research,share and are knowledgeable about the various subjects, even tho most of us knew nothing when we started. On the other site a poster recently wrote that "diabetics" should have should have 3 meals a day plus snacks, using the eatwell guide. I dont think I would have lost 4 st and have better bgl following that advice. And tbh a lot of people use the advice from forums to guide them. I know I did.
 
Back
Top