What is the story with Diabetes UK?

[kokhongw]

Basically there has been no RCT to show that maintaining a long term HbA1c of < 5.5% thru diet for T2D is more dangerous...so I accepted the long term risks of normal HbA1c levels when I opted for the carbs lite fats friendly path.

Overcame the usual hysteria/ignorance against fats and fasting...found that glucose level normalize within a couple of weeks...not months, not years. And eating fats is easier than strolling in the park for me...literally.

 

[Oldvatr]

"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.

Disagree. Most people rely on the people in white coats wearing stethoscopes round their neck and their degrees hanging on the wall. If they say alternative medicine / diets are dangerous, then they will not want to do anything different. If the message is also reinforced by the Media, NICE, PHE, Tesco, and the kind nurse in the hospital, then their POV will remain unchanged by an unofficial website full of people spouting forth. I was specifically ordered not to use this website by my GP, who prefers the DUK one. Dr Google is a murderer in his eyes. But I am glad I went against the authorised. sanitized mantras.

Yes I have diabetic friends who are not interested in taking steps to help themselves, so no, we will not get the message to all who should be interested. IMO this is why the NHS does not support testing for T2D - it is not just funding, but also that we will realise that their mantras don't work for us.

 

[serenity648]

A low carb, proportionaly higher fat diet is TASTY!!!

A low fat, low salt one isnt.

So the lowcarb one should be easier for more people to stick to, as it means they dont eat bland food and feel hungry and deprived.

 

[ringi]

Hi,

They do sort of give T2s dietary advice that is a similar calibre to T1s..
From about 40 years ago...!

Shame it is not form 60 years ago, as the dietary advice for diabetes was close to being "spot on" for Type2, however, there was no understanding that Type2 and Type1 were different apart from the age it started at.

 

[Oldvatr]

Interesting to see however that quite a few of the people in the posts are also members here.. or have been in the past..

There was one person posting that the LC diet did not work for them - they did not lose weight and their bgl did not drop. So they proudly announced that they had started a new WFPB diet, and in 2 weeks had had amazing results.

Well looking at the date of their post and subtracting 2 weeks gave a date that corresponded to the entry in their signature announcing the date for starting the WFPB diet. In the 3 months prior to this date there were signature messages that gave average bgl and weight on various days approx 1 week apart, and they were showing a steady decrease in weight at about 2 or3 kg per week, and their bgl also dropped. On the day their WFPB diet started, their weight started increasing and their bgl went up. The next 2 weekly reports did show both of these reducing, but only to the point they had achieved on LCHF, so their signature gave their game away. So when someone says LCHF does nothing for them they could be exaggerating, or have another agenda. Just saying......

 

[ringi]

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?

Yes there is one in the NHS accounting showing it costs about two billion pounds a year to sort out the result....... That spending was not there before low-fat was taken up by the NHS.

 

[Oldvatr]

Yes there is one in the NHS accounting showing it costs about two billion pounds a year to sort out the result....... That spending was not there before low-fat was taken up by the NHS.

This will act as a suitable couterargument
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

And for any non diabetics reading this:
http://www.organicauthority.com/high-carb-low-fat-diet
Think it won't work for T2D, somehow. The high sugars recommendation kills it for me.

Finally if you want bit of light relief:
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-scie...a-low-carb-high-fat-diet-and-other-variations

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

Yes there is one in the NHS accounting showing it costs about two billion pounds a year to sort out the result....... That spending was not there before low-fat was taken up by the NHS.

I don't understand your response. Is there a study or not?

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

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!

My point was that the government won't recommend LCHF to type 2 diabetics because there are no long-term studies showing it is safe....yet there are also no long-term studies that show their low fat/high carb dietary recommendations are safe.

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

This will act as a suitable couterargument
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

And for any non diabetics reading this:
http://www.organicauthority.com/high-carb-low-fat-diet
Think it won't work for T2D, somehow. The high sugars recommendation kills it for me.

Finally if you want bit of light relief:
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-scie...a-low-carb-high-fat-diet-and-other-variations

I think those 23 studies would be considered short-term.

 

[Oldvatr]

My point was that the government won't recommend LCHF to type 2 diabetics because there are no long-term studies showing it is safe....yet there are also no long-term studies that show their low fat/high carb dietary recommendations are safe.

So Status Quo wins.

 

[Oldvatr]

I think those 23 studies would be considered short-term.

I have not read them fully, but they do clain to be RCT trials. There are others in the NIH archives which have been shared on this site in other threads, so there is a body of formal evidence that is growing. There is of course the Harvard Nurses study to consider too.

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

So Status Quo wins.

Ok, I'll try again. The government is being massively hypocritical to recommend to type 2s a way of eating that they know for a fact will result in deterioration of their condition despite no long-term studies showing it is a safe diet instead of a way of eating that, for many type 2s, results in improvement of their condition for the reason that there are no long-term studies that show it is safe.

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

I have not read them fully, but they do clain to be RCT trials. There are others in the NIH archives which have been shared on this site in other threads, so there is a body of formal evidence that is growing. There is of course the Harvard Nurses study to consider too.

Yes, but the 23 studies are short-term - 2 years or less. There are no long-term studies on the government's dietary recommendations, yet this is the same reason the government won't recommend LCHF, despite lots of short term studies showing the benefits.

 

[ickihun]

Even if longterm studies were agreed to show a benefit to do lchf many still wouldnt follow. Diet is a personal choice. Only a recommended diet for a disease not set in stone. Eatwell plate only became more forceful when many started critising it so the defences came up! Eatwell was only recommended as a guide when I was diagnosed in 2002. They came unstuck recently when it was investigated as not researched properly. They must get it right if they want to change it!
Never mind the cost of diabetes could bankrupt the nhs. All those given a duff diet many do an accumulative claim and bang goes nhs, forever, if successful.
If hillsborough sufferers could put pressure on government then diabetics misadvised will walk into the hands of conservatives to be able to privatize.
I think suck it up and do what suits you would always now be my advice.
I'd advise nhs just inform diabetics of various diets and let patients pick their own to suit their lifestyle and capabilities? Less dangerous for the future of the nhs. Me thinks!

 

[Oldvatr]

Ok, I'll try again. The government is being massively hypocritical to recommend to type 2s a way of eating that they know for a fact will result in deterioration of their condition despite no long-term studies showing it is a safe diet instead of a way of eating that, for many type 2s, results in improvement of their condition for the reason that there are no long-term studies that show it is safe.

OK I will say it again. Stalemate. The Government is not interested in making a U-turn, and has immense inertia against change. The LC approach is perceived as the new kid on the block, so carries the Burden of Proof. Modern research techniques and ways of interpreting the data is a new technology, so until it becomes accepted by mainstream nutritionists, AND someone puts up the money for a research project, then we have a snowballs chance in hell in changing the status quo. There is no public outcry since the public is generally uninterested and unaffected by these findings, so will not lobby their MP et al to raise awareness. So LC diets will remain amongst the mushrooms -kept in the dark and fed bullsh*t/

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

OK I will say it again. Stalemate. The Government is not interested in making a U-turn, and has immense inertia against change. The LC approach is perceived as the new kid on the block, so carries the Burden of Proof. Modern research techniques and ways of interpreting the data is a new technology, so until it becomes accepted by mainstream nutritionists, AND someone puts up the money for a research project, then we have a snowballs chance in hell in changing the status quo. There is no public outcry since the public is generally uninterested and unaffected by these findings, so will not lobby their MP et al to raise awareness. So LC diets will remain amongst the mushrooms -kept in the dark and fed bullsh*t/

I know all that. But my thought was that perhaps if more people asked their dietitian for proof that the diet they recommend is safe for long-term health, then there might be some chance for things to change. Oh nevermind....I know it's futile. The government diet isn't even healthy in the short-term, so I doubt they'll be able to figure out it's unhealthy in the long term.

 

[ickihun]

Interesting to see however that quite a few of the people in the posts are also members here.. or have been in the past..

Mainly in the past, it seems. I dabbled but very stuffy. Mods over power the threads so many dont continue chatting/discussing.
Maybe over cautious for disagreements? May have had a serious problem with it in the past?
It just feels too stuffled for me to feel free to tell my experience. Support from me would feel over familiar too.
I feel more in common with majority of posters here. Once again just my experience.

 

[ickihun]

OK I will say it again. Stalemate. The Government is not interested in making a U-turn, and has immense inertia against change. The LC approach is perceived as the new kid on the block, so carries the Burden of Proof. Modern research techniques and ways of interpreting the data is a new technology, so until it becomes accepted by mainstream nutritionists, AND someone puts up the money for a research project, then we have a snowballs chance in hell in changing the status quo. There is no public outcry since the public is generally uninterested and unaffected by these findings, so will not lobby their MP et al to raise awareness. So LC diets will remain amongst the mushrooms -kept in the dark and fed bullsh*t/

It still didnt put me off making a reference to low carbing after finishing my bariatric well living dietary training sessions pre-op. May have fallen on deaf ears but you never know. Someone may listen.

 

[tim2000s]

OK I will say it again. Stalemate. The Government is not interested in making a U-turn, and has immense inertia against change. The LC approach is perceived as the new kid on the block, so carries the Burden of Proof. Modern research techniques and ways of interpreting the data is a new technology, so until it becomes accepted by mainstream nutritionists, AND someone puts up the money for a research project, then we have a snowballs chance in hell in changing the status quo. There is no public outcry since the public is generally uninterested and unaffected by these findings, so will not lobby their MP et al to raise awareness. So LC diets will remain amongst the mushrooms -kept in the dark and fed bullsh*t/

Precisely this. The official definition of T2 is that it is a progressive disease that may start by being treated with diet but will lead through various drugs to insulin. As a result, the recommended diet, which complies with this point of view, is not out of step at all. As the history of T2 is longer than the diet, the received wisdom is that T2 has always been progressive and the variation of diet recommendations to handle CVD has not affected this.

It's only in a very short timeframe in all of this that anyone has raised the idea that a) T2 can be reversed and b) T2 can be reversed by diet . Indeed, it appears, having a dig through google that it's only really Dr. Roy Taylor's paper in 2012 that is where you first see the idea that it is insulin resistance causing the issues that cause mitochondrial dysfunction and not the other way around, and that reducing this might offer a reversal, officially peer reviewed and published. Even there he discusses using very low calorie diets to recover insulin resistance.

So while there have been people anecdotally discussing the benefits of low carb for T2 for longer (this forum for example), "official" recognition of the need to reduce insulin release to manage the condition has much a much less long life. This is why the current evangelists are important, and things like the data gathered from the Low Carb programme are being turned into studies for peer review. It only takes the body of evidence to build to that inertial point...