What is the story with Diabetes UK?

Oldvatr said:

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 dissicult 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.

Click to expand...

Well I know someone who has just been appointed as a clinical champion raising the bar for inpatient diabetes care. I was also involved many years ago before I was even diagnosed myself with the building of a purpose built diabetes centre near me, my involvement was in memory of many family members of mine who died too young mostly due to complications. DUK were and still are heavily involved within the centre and are perfectly accessible for members of the public and this is evidenced by what's available in the diabetes centre. 're low carb not quite what I said. I said that obviously there is a place for low carb but LONG TERM evidence in terms of decent quality research is not available so DUK/NHS wouldn't recommend that until that evidence is there. Speaking to a friend of mine who works both NHS (specialist nurse) and DUK (clinical champion) I asked her this very question. Her view was partly due to lack of long term evidence. Short term evidence is promising but just suppose in the long term depriving yourself of carbs causes other long term damage of which we are currently unaware? Can you imagine the lawsuits that would follow if the NHS/DUK had been advising these diets without knowing the long term effects. The other point was that lifestyle is the hardest thing to change and possibly only has few as 5% of type 2 patients would stick to the diet therefore it's a case of damage limitation and advising people to make healthier food choices. After all carbs have been around.forever. in the 2nd world war for example, meals were largely carb based without a huge increase in type 2. Therefore it's all down to education, reducing processed foods, not eating fast food and general **** that their guidelines are based around. My mate goes to regular conferences and thinks that low carb may Well be recommended though there appear to be issues around very low carb. As I don't eat very low carb because I hated it so much I didn't question her further on what issues but I can find out.

Art Of Flowers said:

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.

Click to expand...

They aren't saying that, excuse me.
You can eat grapes if you relly like it, bearing in mind they have an high content in sugars and a high GI.
Do I have to start a debunking ? really?

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/guide-t...betes/diabetes-food-myths/myth-fruit-diabetes

vs

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/food/fruit.html
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diet/nhs-diet-advice.html

Seems to me that similar things are explained with different wordings.

By the way my dietician said that I could eat grapes, but instead of say 250g of peaches I have to eat only 50g. Or what I do, I count the carbs and adjust.

Now I stop there because I don't want so look a DUK insider. Actually for me it's a ten hour high speed train trip to touch th UK soil ;-)

MikeTurin said:

They aren't saying that, excuse me.
You can eat grapes if you relly like it, bearing in mind they have an high content in sugars and a high GI.
Do I have to start a debunking ? really?

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/guide-t...betes/diabetes-food-myths/myth-fruit-diabetes

vs

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/food/fruit.html
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diet/nhs-diet-advice.html

Seems to me that similar things are explained with different wordings.

By the way my dietician said that I could eat grapes, but instead of say 250g of peaches I have to eat only 50g. Or what I do, I count the carbs and adjust.

Now I stop there because I don't want so look a DUK insider. Actually for me it's a ten hour high speed train trip to touch th UK soil ;-)

Click to expand...

Hi Mike
That first article you linked to is very interesting...
The headline is "I can't eat fruit if I have diabetes"
In the text however its all about fruit and vegetables... why do they stick in vegetables in an article about fruit?
It really doesn't make sense.. glad to see they do mention reducing carbs especially in reference to fruit juice (liquid sugar as well all know)

but this did make me laugh..

"Adding sliced banana to your cereal for breakfast and remember to reduce your usual amount of cereal to make room for the fruit."

otherwise as we all know your bowl will overflow.... with carbs.....!

CherryAA said:

Jacket potatoes
Try filling potatoes with baked beans, jazzed up with some chilli powder or cayenne pepper, and a few mushrooms and caramelised onions.

• 
  
  
  • Use food labels to choose healthier sandwiches, and cut down on your intake of salt and fat by choosing fruit and bottled water over crisps and fizzy drinks.
  • Try to avoid shopping for lunch (or any food!) when you’re really hungry – you might buy more than you need and you're more likely to make a less healthy choice.
  • Swap a canned drink for a diet version and save around 6tsp sugar.
  • Cut back on fat by choosing baked crisps as a healthier alternative to fried.
  • Choose a two-finger chocolate wafer biscuit, rather than a standard chocolate bar, and save on both fat and calories.

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think this is bad advice. I wouldn't personally eat a jacket potato or drink a full sugar can of pop but I have been known to have a chocolate bar on occasions! It is about encouraging people to choose healthier options wherever they can. Not everyone is madly diligent about their diet with diabetes - my older brother for instance doesn't really grasp nutritional information at all but if the above encouraged him to make a couple of slightly healthier options then it has to be good, imho!

Catlady19 said:

Actually, I don't think this is bad advice. I wouldn't personally eat a jacket potato or drink a full sugar can of pop but I have been known to have a chocolate bar on occasions! It is about encouraging people to choose healthier options wherever they can. Not everyone is madly diligent about their diet with diabetes - my older brother for instance doesn't really grasp nutritional information at all but if the above encouraged him to make a couple of slightly healthier options then it has to be good, imho!

Click to expand...

I would agree that eating a jacket potato is better than eating processed foods. having said that a jacket potato will increase his glucose by quite a lot and as such its not actually much of a healthier option overall. Why not encourage him to have a portion of bacon and eggs instead ?

CherryAA said:

I would agree that eating a jacket potato is better than eating processed foods. having said that a jacket potato will increase his glucose by quite a lot and as such its not actually much of a healthier option overall. Why not encourage him to have a portion of bacon and eggs instead ?

Click to expand...

Cause, you know one sometimes need to eat something yummy, or burns out... And anyway remember that the BEST is the enemy of the GOOD. And sometimes worse is better.

This is the grim outcome that we are seeing around the world...
https://www.dietdoctor.com/diabetic-amputation-rates-soar-california

Over the past 7 years, California clinicians have been amputating toes, feet, ankles and legs of patients with diabetes-related ischemia with much greater frequency than before, and public health officials, diabetes clinicians, and surgeons said they’re puzzled by the trend.

Click to expand...

Is there any doubt about the dismal long term outcome of current dietary advice and medical care for T2D? Not to mention the cluelessness of the mainstream healthcare providers...

1. Blame the patients

Being diabetic may have become so much the norm, patients think they "can just take a pill ... and you don't really have to change your diet."

Click to expand...

Many of his patients -- for a variety of cultural, dietary and other reasons -- "can't grasp the seriousness of the situation, and it's very, very frustrating to many of our clinicians."

Click to expand...

2. You are lucky to just lose your toes...except that many don't live long once amputation starts...

"I tell my patients that the toes are there for decoration. If we can help you keep your foot, then you can live at home and live independently. It's when you get your below-knee amputation or your above-knee amputation that the sort of major impacts on quality of life starts to happen," Goodney said.

Click to expand...

MikeTurin said:

They aren't saying that, excuse me.
You can eat grapes if you relly like it, bearing in mind they have an high content in sugars and a high GI.
Do I have to start a debunking ? really?

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/guide-t...betes/diabetes-food-myths/myth-fruit-diabetes

vs

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/food/fruit.html
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diet/nhs-diet-advice.html

Seems to me that similar things are explained with different wordings.

By the way my dietician said that I could eat grapes, but instead of say 250g of peaches I have to eat only 50g. Or what I do, I count the carbs and adjust.

Now I stop there because I don't want so look a DUK insider. Actually for me it's a ten hour high speed train trip to touch th UK soil ;-)

Click to expand...

There is good reason why a T2D should not eat much fruit, and sadly DUK are once again closing their eyes to recent research studies. It is not the sugar in fruit that is the problem, it is Fructose, Now DUK say that eating fruit does not increase blood glucose, and in that they are perfectly correct, What they do not tell their readers is that excess fructose is processed by the liver directly and gets added to the adipose fat that is believed to be causing Insulin Resistance in diabetics, esp T2D

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sou...0i10k1j0i13k1j0i13i46k1j46i13k1.0.tJvmZEwjbFk

kokhongw said:

This is the grim outcome that we are seeing around the world...
https://www.dietdoctor.com/diabetic-amputation-rates-soar-california


Is there any doubt about the dismal long term outcome of current dietary advice and medical care for T2D? Not to mention the cluelessness of the mainstream healthcare providers...

Click to expand...

How it does relates to dietary advice and not say, the fact in the USA there isn't a public health service?
By the way in the USA there is the American Diabetes Association, not DUK.
And they are talking about the low-carb option.
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fi...-tips/quick-meal-ideas/quick-lunch-ideas.html

MikeTurin said:

How it does relates to dietary advice and not say, the fact in the USA there isn't a public health service?
By the way in the USA there is the American Diabetes Association, not DUK.
And they are talking about the low-carb option.
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fi...-tips/quick-meal-ideas/quick-lunch-ideas.html

Click to expand...

The ADA used to have an almost identical diet to Eatwell#2. Their advice is similar to our NICE guidelines, as supported by DUK, but I believe the ADA are starting to reconsider this since 2013. The ADA is not yet a LC type of diet, but the door is no longer closed to using it, (which cannot be said about NICE or DUK)
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/812795

Oldvatr said:

The ADA used to have an almost identical diet to Eatwell#2. Their advice is similar to our NICE guidelines, as supported by DUK, but I believe the ADA are starting to reconsider this since 2013. The ADA is not yet a LC type of diet, but the door is no longer closed to using it, (which cannot be said about NICE or DUK)
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/812795

Click to expand...

To be fair, NICE can't recommend something without there being evidence that a) it works, and that b) it is safe for long term use. Even if that evidence later proves to be flawed.

In terms of evidence, there simply hasn't been very much to support High Fat compared to that which supported Low Fat. And we all know why that is.

In terms of a) above, there is more evidence of this now. In terms of b), much less. For example, amongst the rat population, there are plenty of dudes that were fed long term high fat low carb/protein diets that ended up suffering with Steatosis, that we might consider to be the precursor to NAFLD. Likewise when you look at the metastudies reviewing long term effects of LCHF on NAFLD, the data we have is by no means homogenously in favour of it long term. So longer term, there's still observational work to be done, and it looks like it needs something like the DCCT study to really provide the evidence base. That's something that diabetes.co.uk is trying to change with the LC programme.

tim2000s said:

To be fair, NICE can't recommend something without there being evidence that a) it works, and that b) it is safe for long term use. Even if that evidence later proves to be flawed.

Click to expand...

People forget this all the time. I'm sure when the "low fat is good" studies came out in the 70s people were clamouring for the NHS to follow the scientific evidence for it and support that diet to help avoid people developing heart disease. It's easy to look back and wonder what they were thinking - but hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure there's something we all eat quite regularly that in 50 years will turn out to have unintended consequences.

NICE are right to take their time on it even if it's frustrating, and things are changing; hell even DUK doesn't specifically discourage LCHF anymore, so much as say "there are no long term studies on LCHF but it does bring down BG levels". I think a lot of people's animus comes from their personal experiences with GPs who aren't up to date with the latest opinions and can often be quite arrogant and aggressive about this stuff. I know as soon as my GP said "you can't live without carbs" that I knew more about LCHF than she did - so why then would I trust anything else she said?

Tannith said:

"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.

Click to expand...

I have to agree. Not everyone is the same. Clinics have a truer perspective of it's diabetics lack of knowledge. An info leaflet if dieticians aren't available or refreshing patients with more up to date dietary advice via dieticians would be a start. Forums can only do it's bit. A very useful bit thou!

Are there any studies examining the long-term health effects of following the low-fat healthy plate diet currently recommended? i.e. has it been shown that it's safe to follow for 50 years or more?

MikeTurin said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm also not on lchf as it made me ill and I ended up on more meds and with a heart scare. I too promote we are all different. However any NEW diagnosed type2 should have the opportunity to test, test, test to find what foods work for them as a first base to what low carbing is to them. Also high fat is also objective. We all have a different perspective of what high fat is. How many times do we see a new thread asking what high fat is or what is ideal low carbing amounts are needed?

NoCrbs4Me said:

Are there any studies examining the long-term health effects of following the low-fat healthy plate diet currently recommended? i.e. has it been shown that it's safe to follow for 50 years or more?

Click to expand...

Thanks for asking this. I did (not so well as you've phrased it) and then decided to delete it.

NoCrbs4Me said:

Are there any studies examining the long-term health effects of following the low-fat healthy plate diet currently recommended? i.e. has it been shown that it's safe to follow for 50 years or more?

Click to expand...

Of course we posters here know none but some diabetics aren't interested in the science just whst works and whst doesn't.
The whole info for diabetics are getting so mushed up many lose interest. Very counter-productive for some readers. It needs to be kept simple to prove its weight in gold, that it is.
The whole mess is due to ill information from dated education for dieticians who have put many sufferers off changing their diet to a useful dietary plan which works for weight loss for obese and adds weight for underweight patients.
One size doesn't fit all. Unfortunately!

MikeTurin said:

And they are talking about the low-carb option.
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fi...-tips/quick-meal-ideas/quick-lunch-ideas.html

Click to expand...

You have stumbled on a rare gem. You deserve an award.

NoCrbs4Me said:

Are there any studies examining the long-term health effects of following the low-fat healthy plate diet currently recommended? i.e. has it been shown that it's safe to follow for 50 years or more?

Click to expand...

We had evidence on the forum that LC diets were used a long time ago, and are not new at all.
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/thr...t-for-diabetics-was-available-in-1917.119607/

Oldvatr said:

We had evidence on the forum that LC diets were used a long time ago, and are not new at all.
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/thr...t-for-diabetics-was-available-in-1917.119607/

Click to expand...

The evidence for Eatwell#1 has been removed from the archive records [Error 404? ]The evidence for Eatwell#2 is described in this link, but no science referenced.
https://www.nutrition.org.uk/healthyliving/healthydiet/eatwell.html

Here is their Science page
https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience