 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / April 2006ADA Funding Request
Hi All This was posted on the ADA web-site, dated 29th March. It is a request for government funding. Written Testimony of L. Hunter Limbaugh, Chairman, Advocacy Committee; American Diabetes Association http://tinyurl.com/r68du or http://www.diabetes.org/diabetesnewsarticle.jsp?storyId=11876835&filename=200603 29/ADA200603291143657530072EDIT.xml Interesting to read in detail. I'll make no comment on the document, just note a few rather frightening statistics mentioned in it: 'funding for diabetes prevention and research efforts is critical not only for the 20.8 million Americans who currently have diabetes, but also for the 41 million who have a condition known as "pre-diabetes."' <snip> "In the last two years alone, diabetes prevalence in the United States has increased by 14%. The number of Americans with diabetes is now growing at a rate of 8% per year and is one of the most prevalent chronic illness among children." <snip> "in every 24 hour period, there will be 4,100 people diagnosed with diabetes, 230 amputations in people with diabetes, 120 people who enter end-stage kidney disease programs and 55 people who go blind. All told, there will be nearly 225,000 deaths from diabetes each year." <snip> "Currently, for every $1 that diabetes costs this country, the federal government invests less than $.01 to help Americans prevent and manage this deadly disease." Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 2x500mg  SignatureEverything in Moderation - Except Laughter. And yet, the recommended emphasis on diet remains most low fat, exercise, and whole grains. It's not working. Time to flip the switch: LOW CARB! :) :: 'funding for diabetes prevention and research efforts is :: critical not only for the 20.8 million Americans who [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] :: the federal government invests less than $.01 to help :: Americans prevent and manage this deadly disease." Grim statistics. Got to agree with Roger on this one--at least "lower" carb. Michelle > Grim statistics. Got to agree with Roger on this one--at least "lower" > carb. I come across so many type 2's that seem very confused when confronted with the news that is carbs (the carbs their dieticians push on them) that actually cause bg's to rise. But of course, if their medical team tells them they must eat carbs then it must be right. > I come across so many type 2's that seem very confused when > confronted with the news that is carbs (the carbs their > dieticians push on them) that actually cause bg's to rise. > But of course, if their medical team tells them they must > eat carbs then it must be right. Can't let that pancreas get lazy, y'know. Gotta keep it working, according to the CDE my cleaning woman's mom saw. At least 30 grams of carbs per meal. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Susan That is what I was told........by my diabetic Educator....30 grams per meal, 15 per snack. SignatureSuzi A1c 6.4 T2 DX 10/2002 Glucophage 2 x 1000mg Lipitor 20mg (3 days a week), Enalapril 20mg 30 minutes walks 7 days a week >That is what I was told........by my diabetic Educator....30 >grams per meal, 15 per snack. The nutritionist I saw made me promise that I'd try to eat a minimum of 60g per meal, and two snacks at 30 g each. "Minimum." Really. I'm not kidding. > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > according to the CDE my cleaning woman's mom saw. At least 30 grams of > carbs per meal. Hee hee, and what is scary, is that person had some sort of formal training! Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in news:498i2rFnmhioU2 @individual.net: <snip> > Can't let that pancreas get lazy, y'know. Gotta keep it working, > according to the CDE my cleaning woman's mom saw. At least 30 grams of > carbs per meal. My dietician gave a plan with 30 g of bread/starchy vegetables, plus milk and/or fruit at each meal. 15 g of bread with snacks. For most type 2 diabetics, I'd have concerns. At the time it worked since I was trying to gain weight and reduce hypos (my meter showed my migraines were connecting to the drops in bg). Cindy Wells (high risk for type 2 but generally underweight and active, since I prefer walking to driving or taking a bus. Thus I hope to postpone diagnosis for 20 years past the age when my grandfather was diagnosed.) > Susan Roger, The ADA doesn't have a specified diet anymore. The last "Position Statement' on diet is here: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/suppl_1/s50 But ADA is way, WAY, more than a group suggesting a meal plan. Their annual scientific meetings are THE place where the latest research into every aspect of diabetes is presented, reviewed, discussed, debated. Once a year diabetes researchers and clinicians gather at one place for 4 - 5 days to put more pieces of the puzzle together. The general public can attend if they pay the admission fee, or buy tapes of specific sessions once the conference is over. Look at the planned schedule here. This will give you a better idea about what ADA is doing. http://scientificsessions.diabetes.org/images/ContentMngt/SS06_ADVProgram.pdf William C Biggs, MD FACE > And yet, the recommended emphasis on diet remains most low fat, exercise, > and whole grains. It's not working. Time to flip the switch: LOW CARB! [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > :: the federal government invests less than $.01 to help > :: Americans prevent and manage this deadly disease." > Roger, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > William C Biggs, MD FACE Thanks for your comments here, Dr. Biggs. You're my new "kindred spirit". :) Best, Kurt >> Roger, >> >> The ADA doesn't have a specified diet anymore. >> >> The last "Position Statement' on diet is here: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/suppl_1/s50 >> But ADA is way, WAY, more than a group suggesting a meal plan. >> >> Their annual scientific meetings are THE place where the latest >> research into every aspect of diabetes is presented, reviewed, >> discussed, debated. Once a year diabetes researchers and clinicians >> gather at one place for 4 - 5 days to put more pieces of the puzzle >> together. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Look at the planned schedule here. This will give you a better idea >> about what ADA is doing. http://scientificsessions.diabetes.org/images/ContentMngt/SS06_ADVProgram.pdf >> William C Biggs, MD FACE > > Thanks for your comments here, Dr. Biggs. > > You're my new "kindred spirit". :) Becuae you are a type 1 Kurt. The majority of diabetics are type 2 and the ADA recommendations don't do them a favour. If I was type 1 I could probably handle the recommendations, no worries. Perhaps the ADA shouls say they are there for type 1's. Not much else is helpful for type 2's >>> Roger, >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> But ADA is way, WAY, more than a group suggesting a meal >plan. Say what you like Dr. Biggs, but when I was attempting to follow advice from the ADA, I was dying, literally dying... BG's just would not go down below 150. When I purposefully decided to go low carb, FBG came down to below 100 almost every day, and I lost 50 lbs.... It is not about preachments. No one, certainly no pontificating group of authoritative figures receiving millions in grant money, is going to persuade me to load up on the stuff that I know was killing me! If you disagree, please go give yourself a shot.... Will, T2 > Say what you like Dr. Biggs, but when I was attempting to follow > advice from the ADA, I was dying, literally dying... BG's just would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If you disagree, please go give yourself a shot.... Well, that was unambiguous. :-) Susan > >>> Roger, > >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > not go down below 150. When I purposefully decided to go low carb, FBG > came down to below 100 almost every day, and I lost 50 lbs.... Really? Then you followed the often repeated part of their website that says to work with your medical team to find what works best for you? > It is not about preachments. No one, certainly no pontificating group > of authoritative figures receiving millions in grant money, is going > to persuade me to load up on the stuff that I know was killing me! Who was persuading you to do that? They make a lot of suggestions, but I have yet to see those sneaky bastards control the minds of those reading the information. There is a lot of flexibility in what they offer in terms of the individual making adaptations to detemine what they specifically need. > If you disagree, please go give yourself a shot.... Huh? Kurt >> Say what you like Dr. Biggs, but when I was attempting to follow >> advice from the ADA, I was dying, literally dying... BG's just would >> not go down below 150. When I purposefully decided to go low carb, >> FBG came down to below 100 almost every day, and I lost 50 lbs.... > Really? Then you followed the often repeated part of their website > that says to work with your medical team to find what works best for > you? And if the medical team march to the same beat? And if you had blind faith in your medical team? i.e. that they would never lead you down the wrong track? > >> Say what you like Dr. Biggs, but when I was attempting to > follow [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > had blind faith in your medical team? i.e. that they would > never lead you down the wrong track? The information sheet that was provided to me by my clinician when my FBG first went over the line was essentially the same as the spew on the ADA website -- reduce fat in my diet and increase carb consumption. It didn't take a whole lot of fact gathering to determine that that was not what I needed. Luckily I don't have blind faith in those clinicians -- who included my PCP who wouldn't prescribe metformin for me. Now, my endocrinologist to whom I referred myself a few months later, told me that what I was doing (low-carb, requesting metformin, trying to increase exercise) were *exactly* what he thought I should be doing. He gave it ten years before low-carbing was orthodoxy for T2 treatment. Unfortunately, I have diabetes today and cannot wait a decade for the ADA and those form sheets from internists' offices to catch up. Priscilla I just pulled out the Handout from Lilly that I got from my diabetes education class, called "Daily Meal Planning Guide, " and looked for the first time ever at the chart of sample meal plans therein. For my 2000 calorie diet, it basically recommends a total of about 251 grams of carbs, or about 50% of calories from carbs, and for a 1500 calorie diet it recomends 184 grams of carbs, just under 50% of calories from carbs. This was copyright 2001. My class was in 2002, and this sheet was the most useful thing I ever got in that first year for dealing with my diabetes. It gave me a pretty clear if not complete listing of how much of various foods would equal how many carbs. Given that my educator told me not to eat 250 grams of carbs (I do eat about 2000 calories a day), but 160-175 grams instead, or 32-35% calories from carbs, this advice represented a quite low-carb approach for me compared to my previous regimen. Before that I had been eating 2 slices of organic whole grain toast, with spreadable fruit, a yogurt, banana and 3 glasses of OJ for breakfast every morning. When I realized I was eating as much carbs for breakfast as she was recommending for the whole day, I cut way back and my numbers came down following her advice. From diagnosis at 394/11.4 A1c, I went down to a 4.7 A1c within a few months. I don't know if there is a newer version of that Lilly sheet, but the dietician that I met with and the entire local program had clearly moved beyond those recommendations. Low fat--not exaclty--we were taught that there are different kinds of fat, and healthy fats, such as peanut butter, cheese, almonds and boiled eggs, were recommended highly. Included in my classes was the clear advice to test after eating as often as necessary to learn what foods were causing high blood sugar and to modify diet accordingly. As a result, I ended up eating slightly fewer carbs than what the dietician had recommended, but in that general ballpark. This program is "recognized by the American Diabetes Association. [and] meet[s] the National Standards for excellence in diabetes education," according to the ADA website. About a year after diagnosis, I started reading here on asd about the ADA diet recommendation of 55% calories from carbs, but I have never been able to find that on the ADA website or elsewhere--not that I have made an exhaustive attempt to find it. Dr Biggs on this thread says that those guidelines were dropped close to a decade ago. I realize that many of the people who post on asd have had diabetes a lot longer than I have, and thus have longer memories, but even if the ADA has not come around to exactly what we might recommend in this area, in my experience they clearly have changed over the years and seem to be moving in the correct direction. Morris > > >> Say what you like Dr. Biggs, but when I was attempting to > > follow [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Priscilla Just wanted to say that this is the kind of thread I wish appeared more in here. Relatively little cheap shots and people discussing their opinions in a proactive and clear manner. Thanks to all...well, almost all.:) Best, Kurt > Just wanted to say that this is the kind of thread I wish appeared > more in here. Relatively little cheap shots and people discussing > their opinions in a proactive and clear manner. Thanks to > all...well, almost all.:) Well we did take a few cheap shots at you but that's par for the course ;) :: Roger, :: :: The ADA doesn't have a specified diet anymore. :: :: The last "Position Statement' on diet is here: :: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/suppl_1/s50 Thanks, William. What about the "rate your plate" advice on their webpage? :: But ADA is way, WAY, more than a group suggesting a meal plan. :: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: Look at the planned schedule here. This will give you a better idea :: about what ADA is doing. That's nice! The ADA sponsors scientific research meetings. However, the meeting is the sum total of the work of researchers and clinicians, etc. So, saying that the ADA is doing any thing other than sponsoring a meetings is misleading. http://scientificsessions.diabetes.org/images/ContentMngt/SS06_ADVProgram.pdf I do appreciate the links. I saw several sessions that I personally would like to attend. BTW, while reading the "position statement" I noted several places where they comment on eating fat and replacing carbs with fat. Their bottom line seems to be simply that eating fat instead of carbs with lead to weight gain, as if there are no other reasons to do so. Getting most of one's calories from fat doesn't necessarily lead to weight gain, as I'm sure you know. perhaps, it is is true that for the ADA to recommend a diet high in fat might lead to weight gain in those who don't understand energy balance and overeat all the time. But those folks will likely overeat anyway. :: William C Biggs, MD FACE :: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] ::::: the federal government invests less than $.01 to help ::::: Americans prevent and manage this deadly disease." Roger, > What about the "rate your plate" advice on their webpage? You need to consider the level of dietary expertise of the 'typical' web page viewer vs. most of the low carbers and others on this newsgroup. I don't think that anyone, including ADA, would consider 'rate your plate' to be a replacement for a well thought out diet plan, whether it is low carb, low fat, or any other calorie reduction plan. > meeting is the sum total of the work of researchers and clinicians, etc. > So, saying that the ADA is doing any thing other than sponsoring a > meetings is misleading. Actually the meeting is something like the "Super Bowl" of diabetes research. It is the way to get your best work seen and understood by thousands of fellow professionals worldwide. To be chosen to present your paper/abstract/poster or give a plenary lecture at ADA is quite an honor, and an incentive to continue to do high quality work. Several awards are given in the field as well. For example, the Lilly Award recognizes a rising star, and Banting Medal recognizes lifetime achievement. In that sense, it is like the Oscars. The honorees give an hour lecture about their work. These are some of the most thrilling, eye-opening lectures in the sessions, and are highly polished & professional. The ADA provides the milieu for this research to be shared amongst thousands of researchers. > BTW, while reading the "position statement" I noted several places where > they comment on eating fat and replacing carbs with fat. Their bottom [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > balance and overeat all the time. But those folks will likely overeat > anyway. You're right, the key is calorie restriction. If you get to that easiest by lowering carbs, then fine. If you restrict calories easiest with lowering fat, fine. Simply exchanging carb for the same amount of fat doesn't work. If you exchange carb for fat, but fewer calories, it can work. I have plenty of examples of people who fail to lose weight on either method. WCB :: Roger, :: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: plate' to be a replacement for a well thought out diet plan, whether :: it is low carb, low fat, or any other calorie reduction plan. Okay. ::: meeting is the sum total of the work of researchers and clinicians, ::: etc. So, saying that the ADA is doing any thing other than [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: The ADA provides the milieu for this research to be shared amongst :: thousands of researchers. Yes, most professional societies and orgs serve this role. If this meeting ever ends up in the south east, I'll try to go if the registration fee isn't too high. As it's not my area, I'd be paying out of pocket. ::: BTW, while reading the "position statement" I noted several places ::: where they comment on eating fat and replacing carbs with fat. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] :: same amount of fat doesn't work. If you exchange carb for fat, but :: fewer calories, it can work. Yes. LC works best for me, even though I can make lower fat work too. As a T2, I also feel LC is safer in this sense that that type of diet tends to remove swings regardless of exercise. :: I have plenty of examples of people who fail to lose weight on either :: method. Yes. >:: Roger, >:: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Okay. You are being very generous there Roger :) The ADA always seems to be aimed at the people who can't for whatever reason think for themselves. I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but there are people who don't comprehend a lot of what they hear or read, so they need things to be at their level. Those people would take the rate your plate at face value. If the rate your plate refuses to let you go on because you haven't chosen starches then those people think they must have it. On the one hand the ADA are telling you to try to maintain numbers close to non diabetic numbers. On the other hand they are making recommendations that fly in the face of that. And not many people would be co-relating good numbers with differing levels of carbs. :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: William C Biggs MD wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] :: that. And not many people would be co-relating good numbers :: with differing levels of carbs. In the broader context, this "rate your plate" concept is probably an attempt on the ADAs part to cap the consumption of carbs. I believe they think that many people just won't be able to handle a truly restrictive program, and then they come up with stuff like "RYP". Yeah, it ain't working. But for the ADA to proclaim LC as the true way would wreck havoc on the medical community, while the masses would have a field day overeating bunless burgers and cheating with fries & pies. What a mess. :) > In the broader context, this "rate your plate" concept is probably an > attempt on the ADAs part to cap the consumption of carbs. I believe they > think that many people just won't be able to handle a truly restrictive > program, and then they come up with stuff like "RYP". You're still being too nice. I think that condescending, "blame the patient" tack is another way of saying "we get our income from drug, grain and sugar industries. They're the ones who won't be able to handle a truly restricted starch diet. > Yeah, it ain't working. But for the ADA to proclaim LC as the true way > would wreck havoc on the medical community, while the masses would have a > field day overeating bunless burgers and cheating with fries & pies. What a > mess. :) Grass fed beef, of course. :-) Susan :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: :: You're still being too nice. True, but I don't see the reason to blame William for the ADA's BS. However, I will blame Kurt. :) :: I think that condescending, "blame the patient" tack is another way :: of saying "we get our income from drug, grain and sugar industries. No doubt. :: They're the ones who won't be able to handle a truly restricted :: starch diet. Yeah, cause they'd be poorer. ::: Yeah, it ain't working. But for the ADA to proclaim LC as the true ::: way would wreck havoc on the medical community, while the masses [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: :: Susan > True, but I don't see the reason to blame William for the ADA's BS. > However, I will blame Kurt. :) You're being bad! I don't mean you should blame him or anyone else. I meant you were giving the ADA a good intentions pass. Susan :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :: :: I meant you were giving the ADA a good intentions pass. I do tend to think that they think of the masses as simpletons and try to foster feckless plans that end up doing harm. > I do tend to think that they think of the masses as simpletons and try to > foster feckless plans that end up doing harm. What do you make of the grudging comments that accompanied their obligatory posting of the Mary Gannon study of protein, less starch, for glycemic control and patient empowerment? Susan > :: x-no-archive: yes > :: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > True, but I don't see the reason to blame William for the ADA's BS. > However, I will blame Kurt. :) LOL. Hey, Roger, pick a number and wait in line! :) Best, Kurt :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Susan wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] :: :: LOL. Hey, Roger, pick a number and wait in line! :) Just kiddin! :) >> :: x-no-archive: yes >> :: >> :: Roger Zoul wrote: >> :: >> ::: In the broader context, this "rate your plate" concept is >> ::: probably an attempt on the ADAs part to cap the consumption of >> ::: carbs. I believe they think that many people just won't be able >> ::: to handle a truly restrictive program, and then they come up >> ::: with stuff like "RYP". >> :: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > LOL. Hey, Roger, pick a number and wait in line! :) The numbers have all been taken, drats! ;) >:: x-no-archive: yes >:: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > True, but I don't see the reason to blame William for the ADA's BS. I don't blame William at all but I think he may not see the forest for the trees. Also William sees things from a doctor's point of view, not the patients POV. We are after all the people who will suffer, or not, the complications of inappropriate advice. > However, I will blame Kurt. :) Lol, I don't blame Kurt either, he doesn't wear the type 2 shoes but I think he should try to at least imagine how our shoes may fit. > Yeah, it ain't working. But for the ADA to proclaim LC as the true > way would wreck havoc on the medical community, while the masses > would have a field day overeating bunless burgers and cheating with > fries & pies. What a mess. :) They don't even have to proclaim low carb, they just need to stop doing the thinking for people and educate them in the proper use of carbs. And get rid of the claptrap, like grains provide necessary nutrition, blah blah. If the nutritional brains behind the ADA diet concepts can't figure out differing carb level meals based on good nutrition then they need to be given the boot. > > What about the "rate your plate" advice on their webpage? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to be a replacement for a well thought out diet plan, whether it is low > carb, low fat, or any other calorie reduction plan. But why is it necessary for it to provide information which, if followed, will degrade the health of T2 diabetics? Why couldn't "Rate Your Plate" provide actual *helpful* information? Priscilla > You're right, the key is calorie restriction. If you get to that easiest by > lowering carbs, then fine. If you restrict calories easiest with lowering > fat, fine. Simply exchanging carb for the same amount of fat doesn't work. > If you exchange carb for fat, but fewer calories, it can work. Uh, no. The key is not calorie restriction. We're diabetics! The key is carbohydrate restriction. Weight loss usually follows because restricting carbs and increasing fat leads to quicker satiety and lower overall calorie intake. But the key is CARBS, not CALORIES. Priscilla > Roger, > > The ADA doesn't have a specified diet anymore. > > The last "Position Statement' on diet is here: > http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/suppl_1/s50 A 2004 update: Nutrition Principles and Recommendations in Diabetes - http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/27/suppl_1/s36 Frank Frank, Actually, that wasn't an update. It was a reprint of the same article from 2002. ADA formerly published each position statement, and reprinted them every January. In 2005, they began only printing the position statements that had changed. So the last 'printed' version of the 2002 article was in 2004. The 2003 dated article is the same as well. WCB >> Roger, >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Frank > Frank, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So the last 'printed' version of the 2002 article was in 2004. The 2003 > dated article is the same as well. I jumped the gun before reading the article. Nevertheless, the fact that the ADA merely republished the same findings over again should be a critique in itself. The central problems of dysfunctional carbohydrate and fat metabolism are not addressed. The argument that there are no long term studies on the macronutrients - carbohydrates, proteins, and fats - is overplayed throughout the article. It seems like a cop-out after so many years. Gannon and Nuttall have been recommending longer term and broader coverage (more subjects) studies going back to the early 1980s, but their careers must be drawing to a close. In the meanwhile the inertia of ADA earlier diet recommendations (10 plus years ago) are for most intents and purposes institutionalized or ingrained in the diabetes educators and dietitians that in turn educate the patients. Most of the type 2 DMs that frequent this and the alt.support.diabetes newsgroup will attest to that situation. Thomas M.S. Wolever said (in a few excerpts), "I am disappointed with the American Diabetes Association’s Position statement: Evidence-Based Nutrition Principles and Recommendations for the Treatment and Prevention of Diabetes and Related Complications (1) and technical review of the same title (2). The recommendations are not based on evidence. There is no explanation of the methods used for searching the literature and selecting papers for inclusion, nor any indication of the criteria used to grade the evidence (3). The sections in the technical review dealing with carbohydrate contain several errors, but space does not allow me to deal with all of the issues. I will focus just on the following recommendation: "With regard to the glycemic effects of carbohydrates, the total amount of carbohydrate in meals or snacks is more important than the source or type." The technical review indicates that dietary carbohydrates consist of monosaccharides, disaccharides, polyols, oligosaccarides, polysaccharides, and fiber, and it includes discussion about using correct terminology when referring to dietary carbohydrate. Presumably, therefore, the authors understood the meaning of the term "carbohydrate," and used it intentionally. There are no qualifications. Thus, it can be presumed that amount is always more important that source or type of carbohydrate without exception. This carries a great deal of weight because it is said to be based on A-level evidence, the highest possible level of evidence and supposedly virtually indisputable." Source: American Diabetes Association Evidence-Based Nutrition Principles and Recommendations Are Not Based on Evidence - http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/7/1263 Response to Wolever: Marion J. Franz, MS, RD,CDE and John P. Bantle, MD - http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/7/1264 Response to the Diabetes Nutrition Study Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes: Marion J. Franz, MS, RD, CDE and John P. Bantle, MD - http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/7/1258 Granted that the ADA did allow Dr. Wolever to publish his critique, but time marches on and little reform is in sight. Antioxidants are recommended from dietary sources in ADA recommendations, yet not much is done to quantify the sources foods to use as "drugs" for diabetics to reduce oxidative stress and beta-cell death. Quentin Grady has done a lot to promote the topic on the diabetic newsgroups, but most of the world's diabetics are not exposed to the most elemental aspects of the subject. Are Oxidative Stress-Activated Signaling Pathways Mediators of Insulin Resistance and ß-Cell Dysfunction? - http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/52/1/1 (This article has been cited 85 times in subsequent articles - see below) A scholar.google.com search for Goldfine antioxidants - http://tinyurl.com/zlupm Frank >> Frank, >> [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > >Frank Thanks Frank Very well said. Maybe you could go in 2007? You'd certainly do it much better than I. In fact, I'd vote you onto the ADA board - if I had voting rights:-) Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 2x500mg SignatureEverything in Moderation - Except Laughter. >> Roger, >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Frank It's written in such a way as to defend against research that demonstrates the damage done by starches in the diet. Kind of like their misinterpretation of the recent Gannon publication showing starch=bad, protein=good. Susan Susan, Actually I would characterize their 2002 statement as cautious...There have been so many food fads that haven't panned out over the last 20 years, one must have a healthy degree of skepticism about any current fad. If low carb works so well, why are we fatter than ever ? The 'research' in food, diet, appetite, and energy handling is currently in the dark ages. What is pretty clear is that the North America and Europe are in the midst of an obesity crisis, and most of the 'powers that be' are still in denial. ADA, in its advocacy function, is trying to sound the alarm, but most of our legislators are clueless about the problem. WCB > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Susan > Susan, > > Actually I would characterize their 2002 statement as cautious...There have > been so many food fads that haven't panned out over the last 20 years, one > must have a healthy degree of skepticism about any current fad. I'm not talking about a fad or a popular diet plan, I'm talking about clinical intervention that's been studies with very good results. I'd call the ADA food guide fad based, but that would be too kind, IMO. > If low carb works so well, why are we fatter than ever ? Low carb works. Read the research. We got fatter and developed epidemic DM in peds during the decades following the implementation of low fat regimes, the real fad; making fake food to replace natural ones. > The 'research' in food, diet, appetite, and energy handling is currently in > the dark ages. Not really, just some unclued medical professionals are. But the tide is turning because low fat, high starch has been such a failure. > What is pretty clear is that the North America and Europe are in the midst > of an obesity crisis, and most of the 'powers that be' are still in denial. They wrongly think it's just a matter of "calories in, calories out." > ADA, in its advocacy function, is trying to sound the alarm, but most of our > legislators are clueless about the problem. :-D Susan Susan, >> If low carb works so well, why are we fatter than ever ? > > Low carb works. Read the research. We got fatter and developed epidemic > DM in peds during the decades following the implementation of low fat > regimes, the real fad; making fake food to replace natural ones. The low fat people have their research too. Low fat works for them. IMHO, the typical obese person isn't following ANY diet consistently. I had one patient last month sending her husband out for Chicken McNuggets at midnight from the hospital, then complaining about her weight and poor control. As far as 'fake' foods, I would also point out we get a lot of 'fake' exercise now as well. An eye opener for me last year was visiting Japan. The Japanese are almost never obese (except for the Sumo). They get plenty of exercise. The eat a low fat, high carb diet, but in much smaller portions. Drat, they must not be reading the research. My experience visiting Japan was when you see a fat person, when they turn around you realize that they are an American. IMHO, obesity research is still in the dark ages. WCB Sorry Dr. biggs, If nothing else, it comes down to the First Law of Thermodynamics... People who take in more energy than they expend will get fat, over time... Sorry, but that is how this game is set up. Fatness, as everyone tells us, is somehow linked to diabetes. And yet, it is not so simple as that... Many "fat" people do not get this horrible malady, and many "skinny" people do. There is also a strong genetic component, and the etiology of T2 diabetes is far from clear. All the rest is like the king's new clothes, except I'll grant that there seems to be some legitimacy to the idea of low carbing it to slow, ie retard, glucose release into the bloodstream, thus sparing some of us humble diabetics with compromised metabolism of the need to go blind and have neuropathy, if we get with the programme.... Let's quit with the preachments... Will, T2 > Susan, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The low fat people have their research too. Low fat works for them. I succeeded on low fat, too, til I didn't anymore. But I have to disagree about the research. Unless you can produce research finding fault with high fat that controlled for the influence of other macronutrients. > IMHO, the typical obese person isn't following ANY diet consistently. Yeah, well, that's your opinion. Fact is, weight loss is hard no matter how you do it, with many failures. Yet, I, and many like me when I developed PCOS, were unable to lose no matter how scrupulously we adhered to a diet plan. I was slim when I got PCOS on a low fat, high carb diet, along with labile hypertension and severe dyslipidemia. I went on that 800 calorie per day diet to avoid *gaining* not because I needed to lose. Even with metformin, I'm done with dinner after having eaten what's an appetizer portion for most folks. But this is way off topic. For diabetics, high carb is a dietary problem. Since there's no need in human nutrition for starch, there's no reason to include it, much less have it at the base of a diabetic diet. I had > one patient last month sending her husband out for Chicken McNuggets at > midnight from the hospital, then complaining about her weight and poor > control. Well, there's an anecdote for ya. :-) > As far as 'fake' foods, I would also point out we get a lot of 'fake' > exercise now as well. I'm not interested in traveling down a bunny trail with you, about weight loss, how those who are overweight must be gluttonous McNugget chowhounds, etc. > An eye opener for me last year was visiting Japan. The Japanese are almost > never obese (except for the Sumo). They get plenty of exercise. The eat a > low fat, high carb diet, but in much smaller portions. Loretta, on this newsgroup, uses portion control for her diabetes, not wanting to give up starch foods and sweets. The portions are miniscule, but I would never argue with her choice or her success. She trades off. But good research demonstrates that folks on high GL diets are hungrier more, and eat more after a high starch meal. > Drat, they must not be reading the research. See above. > My experience visiting Japan was when you see a fat person, when they turn > around you realize that they are an American. > > IMHO, obesity research is still in the dark ages. No, just some clinicians, IMO, of course. Now *brain* research, *that's* in the dark ages. Susan >x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>DM in peds during the decades following the implementation of low fat >>>regimes, the real fad; making fake food to replace natural ones. The problem is, Dr. Biggs, no one gives a rat's a.s about anything the ADA puts out anyomre, because in the past, it has all proved to be a lot of rot. Just more bright young folk getting grants, going to parties, having daily fun, and producing a few tidbits that amount to very little.... People are tired of signing up for "nothing" studies... At least, please leave us alone, so we can pursue what we know works, without your bogus "science". Will, T2 > The problem is, Dr. Biggs, no one gives a rat's a.s about anything the > ADA puts out anyomre, because in the past, it has all proved to be a > lot of rot. No one here, almost. But there's a lot of damage being done to folks I know who doggedly follow that device, even into dialysis and heart failure and blindness. They, like some we've seen posting here of late, buy the veneer of respectability and truly believe they're getting the benefit of good science and best clinical practices. It's heartbreaking. Susan > I'm not interested in traveling down a bunny trail with you, about > weight loss, how those who are overweight must be gluttonous McNugget > chowhounds, etc. A serve of McNuggets does not a fat person make. I can factor in a lot of fast food items on my lower carb diet if needs be. My sitting down to McNuggets does not show I have no control over my weight. So McNuggets may not be fabulously healthy but I don't do it often. If the kids are having Maccas meal I see no harm in the occasional nuggets and one of their salads. It's the big picture not the individual sketchings that count ;) The lady in the hospital chowing on nuggets probably had the traditional hospital diabetic meal, lol. Now that's a challenge for the weight and bg control conscious. Thank goodness a lot of hospital stays are short. Those diabetic hospital meals, long term would guarantee a diabetic losing all control. > A serve of McNuggets does not a fat person make. I can > factor in a lot of fast food items on my lower carb diet if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > having Maccas meal I see no harm in the occasional nuggets > and one of their salads. The doctor was using the story to let us know that obese people are gluttons who won't do anything to help themselves. Blame the patient. She stands for all among us who struggle with obesity. Susan x-no-archive: yes I just wanted to refresh my memory and stay up to date, so here's a list of the ADA;s corporate sponsors. This is who signs the paychecks there, figuratively speaking: "Our National Corporate Sponsors The American Diabetes Association applauds corporate America's support of ADA's mission to prevent and cure diabetes and to improve the lives of all people affected by diabetes. The following national corporate sponsors are currently helping ADA work toward these important goals. * Abbott Diabetes Care * Abbott Laboratories, Inc. * Allison Medical Foods (Ensavor) * ARAMARK Corporation * AstraZenca * Aventis Pharmaceuticals * Bally Total Fitness Corporation * Bayer HealthCare, Diagnostics Division * BD Medical Diabetes Care * Birds Eye Foods * Blue Moon Licensing, LLC (Blue Moon Pizza) * Bristol-Myers Squibb Company * Cadbury Schweppes -- America's Beverage * Colgate Palmolive Company * Day-Timers, Inc. * Eli Lilly and Company * Etonic Athletic Worldwide * General Mills, Inc. * GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals * Gold's Gym International, Inc. * Innovative Candy Concepts * Johnson & Johnson * Johnson Publishing Company, EBONY * Jones Soda Company * Kraft Foods * Lifescan, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson Co. * Magnet America * MBNA America Bank, NA * McNeil Nutritionals * Medtronic MiniMed * MedWise, Inc. * Merck & Co., Inc. * Merisant U.S., Inc. * Nestlé USA, Inc. * Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation * Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals * Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. * People Weekly Magazine * Performance Bicycles, Inc. * Pfizer Inc * Rite Aid Corporation * Roche Diagnostics Corporation * Safeway Inc. * Sanofi-Aventis, Inc. * Solo Licensing LLC * Specialty Brands of America * Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc. * TIAA-CREF * Wyeth Pharmaceuticals A tad heavily reliant on drugs and medical devices, they are. The irony. Susan A lot of incentive to keep giving sub optimal advice. > x-no-archive: yes > > I just wanted to refresh my memory and stay up to date, so here's a > list of the ADA;s corporate sponsors. This is who signs the > paychecks there, figuratively speaking: > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Susan There she goes again.... Blaming somebody else..... WCB >A lot of incentive to keep giving sub optimal advice. > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >> >> Susan > There she goes again.... > > Blaming somebody else..... William, just out of curiosity.. you have a new obese type 2 patient. What is your first lot of advice and intitial treatment? > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of all people affected by diabetes. The following national corporate > sponsors are currently helping ADA work toward these important goals. [snip] > * TIAA-CREF Oh, sh.t. That's where my retirement money is. :-( Priscilla > Oh, sh.t. That's where my retirement money is. :-( > > Priscilla Well, on the bright side, it's considered to be a very well managed investment vehicle. Even so. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The doctor was using the story to let us know that obese people are > gluttons who won't do anything to help themselves. Yes I did notice that ;) But it is a fairly oft-held observation. > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > gluttons who won't do anything to help themselves. Blame the patient. > She stands for all among us who struggle with obesity. Well, I didn't see it that way. I saw it more as an issue of the person being unaware of what they had eaten. And I see this time and time again. I'm the type who tends to remember every bite she eats. If I lick a toothpick when I'm testing brownies for doneness, I remember it! My husband is one who does not remember what he eats. Oh sure, he'll remember a steak dinner that he had at a restaurant. And he'll eat a ton at the restaurant because he'll tell you he hasn't had a bite to eat all day! Of course he'll forget all about eating whatever leftovers were on Angela's breakfast plate. He'll forget about the 6 oranges he ate while watching TV. Or the large bag of chips he inhaled while playing chess on the computer. He'll forget about the sandwich he wolfed down in the kitchen. Or the container of ice cream he ate in one sitting by sticking a spoon in the carton. Oh yeah. He'll wail about how he can't lose weight. And he'll tell you that he only eats one meal a day. I don't think he considers all that other stuff to be a meal. Just as he wouldn't consider chicken nuggets to be a meal, no matter how many he ate. And it's not just overweight people who do this. I used to work with this gal who was skinny as a toothpick. She didn't often eat regular meals. She'd tell you this! She'd tell you she felt hollow inside because she hadn't eaten for three days. And yet every time you'd see her she'd be grabbing some pretzels or popcorn or dried fruit. She could eat entire bags of dried fruit, like a pound at a time and never gain an ounce. Everyone is different. Some people clearly abuse food. Some do not. I know thin people who eat horrible diets and fat people who eat very little and eat healthy foods. But I also know some fat people who do not eat properly. And it really bothers me when people claim they don't know why they can't lose weight, yet eat a bunch of junk. SignatureSee my webpage: http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm :: If low carb works so well, why are we fatter than ever ? I'm not!! Also, I don't think that most ever give low carb a real try, either due to ignorance or fear. :: The 'research' in food, diet, appetite, and energy handling is :: currently in the dark ages. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] ::: ::: Susan >:: If low carb works so well, why are we fatter than ever ? > > I'm not!! > > Also, I don't think that most ever give low carb a real try, either > due to ignorance or fear. How many times do you see people talk about how they could never eat platefuls of steak, eggs and bacon all day??? I think the people who bag carb modification the most, are those who haven't a clue aout how to lower carb in a healthful manner. With all the research about the health giving qualities of certain fats you have to wonder what the lack of those are doing to the low fat brigade. Apart from the newly diagnosed type 2's, which group of diabetics have the highest trigylceride levles? The lower carbers or the low fat, high carb folk who are bringing bg's down with meds or insulin? My endo often says that he looks at trigylceride levels to see what is really happening with a patient, rather than go by what they say. From my experience at watching low fat, high carb eaters, they seem to eat much less of the nutrient rich low carb vegetables, cooked and raw. > How many times do you see people talk about how they could > never eat platefuls of steak, eggs and bacon all day??? I > think the people who bag carb modification the most, are > those who haven't a clue aout how to lower carb in a > healthful manner. That's the truth. > With all the research about the health giving qualities of > certain fats you have to wonder what the lack of those are > doing to the low fat brigade. Some research suggests that they have more depression, poorer brain function in other ways, lowered immunity and worse heart health. I recall a quote from a lipids researcher who stated that it would be hard, if not impossible, to get the amount of EFAs that are essential to human health on a 30% fat diet. Fat and protein are essential to human survival, starch is not. Apart from the newly diagnosed > type 2's, which group of diabetics have the highest > trigylceride levles? The lower carbers or the low fat, high > carb folk who are bringing bg's down with meds or insulin? My TGL dropped immediately from close to 300 to 100 within two weeks of dropping starch. In the same two weeks, my HDL doubled from a decade long low of 34 to 68. Now it's 70, with pantethine. > My endo often says that he looks at trigylceride levels to > see what is really happening with a patient, rather than go > by what they say. Yes, my nephew, a cardiologist calls high TGLs the hallmark of a junk diet. Susan >x-no-archive: yes >I recall a quote from a lipids researcher who stated that it would be >hard, if not impossible, to get the amount of EFAs that are essential >to human health on a 30% fat diet. The usual explanation of why Americans are omega-3 deficient is * We're unnaturally dependent on grains, which are lower than other food sources in omega-3 * Early hunter gatherers ate more fish than we did. I have my doubts about the second point, but even granting it... There's another point that I've not seen discussed in any of the literature: * We do not consume the organ meats. Beef liver has a very good omega 3/6 ratio. But the real Omega 3 bonanza is in the brain. About 20% of the total fat in Beef brain is DHA (22:6 n-3) and EPA (!) even in grain fed animals. (http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/) In Houston, you can still find tacos with brains in some of the taquerias that serve mostly recent immigrants, and in the Chinese markets. But most native born Americans won't eat organ meats. Of course, brain is also 3% (by weight) cholesterol, which may give even moderate cholesterol skeptics pause. Prion disease is also an issue. But our ancestors ate the organ meats. David Throop >>x-no-archive: yes >>I recall a quote from a lipids researcher who stated that it would be [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > David Throop I believe it's feedlot production of beef, instead of grass feeding, that's tipped the ratios of the meat from omega 3 to high omega 6s as well. Susan >>x-no-archive: yes >>I recall a quote from a lipids researcher who stated that it would be [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >David Throop "Brains......Brrains..." "WHY do you eat brains?!?" "...it ...makes the... pain go away..." ;-) ... > I have my doubts about the second point, but even granting it... > There's another point that I've not seen discussed in any of the > literature: > > * We do not consume the organ meats. Few places prepare sweetbreads (pancreas) anymore. Until the anticholesterol campaign, beef liver was commonly eaten, calve's liver was more often than not on restaurant menus. Now I don't eat it because it's carby. :-) > Beef liver has a very good omega 3/6 ratio. Even if the beef are feedlot raised? But the real Omega 3 > bonanza is in the brain. About 20% of the total fat in Beef brain is > DHA (22:6 n-3) and EPA (!) even in grain fed animals. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pause. Prion disease is also an issue. But our ancestors ate the > organ meats. Cholesterol doesn't bother me a bit, and I don't think prions have popped up in range fed beef stock yet... and it *has* turned up in skeletal muscle, so avoiding the CNS is no protection against mad cow disease (Denny Crane!). Susan >> Beef liver has a very good omega 3/6 ratio. >Even if the beef are feedlot raised? Apparently so; look it up in the nal search engine (http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/). They don't say what their sources for beef are but the general discussion indicates that they're using 'supermarket grade'. It seems that the organs (especially the brain) get first crack at the serum omega-3's and the muscles take from what's left. >Cholesterol doesn't bother me a bit, and I don't think prions have >popped up in range fed beef stock yet... and it *has* turned up in >skeletal muscle, so avoiding the CNS is no protection against mad cow >disease (Denny Crane!). I'm not worrying about prion disease. Or whatever CJD really is - I'm still inclined to think that there's a virus lurking in there. I still can't quite buy the idea of an infectious protein. "The time has come" the walrus said. "To talk of heart disease. And shoes and ships and sealing wax And whether pigs have omega-3s." David Throop > :: If low carb works so well, why are we fatter than ever ? > > I'm not!! Neither am I. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Neither am I. Ditto, I lost 45 kg on lower carb and been maintaining it for quite a while. >>x-no-archive: yes >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Ditto, I lost 45 kg on lower carb and been maintaining it > for quite a while. I didn't have any weight to lose when I became severely IR, developed PCOS and diabetes. Susan Susan, Roger, Congratulations. You are bucking the trend. Every state in the US has higher obesity rates every year for the last 15 years. For example, http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=131587 It is easy to point fingers. I am not sure why a person who is eating too much, and not exercising should get a free pass. Why are we blaming the food companies and doctors ? Most of these folks aren't seeing doctors at all. Who is making their eating choices for them? If I could have a nickel for every half-baked excuse why somebody doesn't exercise, I would already be retired. I see people every day who make bad choices. Bad choices about dropping out of school, bad choices in who they married, bad choices about where they work. It's a free country, people are expected to make their own choices. They aren't always good ones. But in the US, if you make a bad choice, or a series of bad choices, it is someone else's fault. The people here who are successful in their control, and their weight loss, are making good choices about their health. They are taking responsibility for themselves. You should spend a day with me, and see how many people are incapable of doing this. It's not low carb vs low fat for most people. It's losing a pound so far this week, then eating a whole bag of Oreos watching TV after dinner because they can't stop, and gaining all the weight back. Who bought those Oreos? Who picked them up, and ate them ? Certainly, must be somebody else's fault. WCB > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Susan > Susan, Roger, > > Congratulations. > > You are bucking the trend. Yes, we've been low carbing for years. Roger's been diabetic for 24 years. No meds, has an a1c of 4.8. I'm a loser with 5.2. He's an exerciser, I'm ill and often don't, though I never lie around. > Every state in the US has higher obesity rates every year for the last 15 > years. > > For example, > http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=131587 That danged pyramid sure came home to roost. Epidemic of peds with DM type 2, also, virtually unheard of before all that starch peddling. > It is easy to point fingers. I am not sure why a person who is eating too > much, and not exercising should get a free pass. Why are we blaming the food > companies and doctors ? Most of these folks aren't seeing doctors at all. You keep making these straw man arguments. Public policy pushed a lot of high GL stuff onto our plates, and it's proven to increase hunger and obesity. Folks predisposed to IR are the worst victims. We're all accountable for what we do about our health, but hormones send powerful hunger signals. Not everyone has the sophistication to learn what most docs don't know and won't tell them. I used to feel very hungry even when full from a pasta meal. Now I'm satisfied with small meals and don't get hungry for several hours. I'm sure I'd be fat by now as my IR progressed, because I really couldn't stay below 800 calories for more than a day or two, ever, glutton that I am. > Who is making their eating choices for them? Who chose to make public policy that would make weight gain near inevitable for them? > If I could have a nickel for every half-baked excuse why somebody doesn't > exercise, I would already be retired. Even when unable to exercise due to disability, I cut my CVD risk profile from the highest decile to below average by cutting out starches and sugar. I didn't have to get by on 800 calories per day anymore. Exercise is important. Sometimes it's not possible. Sometimes folks need a weight loss method they can live with before they can exercise, I've learned from reading accounts of morbidly obese folks who can hardly move, and are thrilled by the appetite control on low carb that they've never experienced before. I learned a lot reading accounts from folks who can finally take a walk without painful skin chafing, or shortness of breath. > I see people every day who make bad choices. Bad choices about dropping out > of school, bad choices in who they married, bad choices about where they > work. Bad choices about which medical and dietary advice to follow... > It's a free country, people are expected to make their own choices. They > aren't always good ones. We've seen that here! > But in the US, if you make a bad choice, or a series of bad choices, it is > someone else's fault. [...] You must've thought you were in alt.fan.imus or something for a moment there. > The people here who are successful in their control, and their weight loss, > are making good choices about their health. They are taking responsibility > for themselves. And a lot of folks misguidedly think that's what they're doing (as I thought) when they follow the pyramid, Ornish, or the ADA diet guide. They give up because the allegedly best practices make them miserable and don't work for them. Then you come along, seemingly, to kick them when they're down. > You should spend a day with me, and see how many people are incapable of > doing this. It's not low carb vs low fat for most people. It's losing a > pound so far this week, then eating a whole bag of Oreos watching TV after > dinner because they can't stop, and gaining all the weight back. The more obese they are, the more likely they're IR. The more IR they are, the more the carbs matter. > Who bought those Oreos? Who picked them up, and ate them ? You seem to dislike your patients and be frustrated in your chosen career. Maybe one of those bad choices? ;-) > Certainly, must be somebody else's fault. Disdain for sick and fat people. That's what *I* look for in a doctor. Sheesh. Susan <responsible for herself, compassionate for those still struggling> Susan, Sometimes the truth can be upsetting. Sorry. WCB > But in the US, if you make a bad choice, or a series of bad choices, > it is someone else's fault. William, the US doesn't have the monopoly on that way of thinking ;) If I had a dollar for every person I have heard say they are fat because of "glands" I'd be a rich woman. I got fat because I ate too much and exercised too little (exercise involved walking to the fridge often, so I guess I did get some exercise ;) > You should spend a day with me, and see how many people are incapable > of doing this. It's not low carb vs low fat for most people. It's > losing a pound so far this week, then eating a whole bag of Oreos > watching TV after dinner because they can't stop, and gaining all the > weight back. Ok, this brings us to another area. I agree that the closer to normal weight the better but when I got the DM diagnosis (and despite the doc chanting the usual lose weight mantra) my first thoughts were to gain bg control. The fact that the method I chose had the side effect of weight loss was a bonus. Yes losing weight improves the insulin resistance for most type 2's but at that initial point I just wanted control. If the main emphasis had been on weight loss I most likely wouldn't have succeeded in either weight loss or bg control. <snip> > You should spend a day with me, and see how many people are incapable of > doing this. It's not low carb vs low fat for most people. It's losing a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Certainly, must be somebody else's fault. This really frustrates me. My daughter and I were diagnosed with food allergies. Now that we know this, we've totally stopped eating those foods we are allergic to. I read all the food labels and I ask questions at restaurants. Yes, there have been a few mistakes made. I didn't read a label correctly or didn't know that a certain word meant "dairy" or "soy", or the food was cross contaminated. But for the most part we are doing all that we can to avoid these foods. Not only have we lost weight, but we feel much better than we used to! However my mother also has food alleriges and instead of avoiding the foods entirely, she will find excuses for why she can eat these things. She doesn't do it often (or so she says, but I disagree), she hadn't thought about ____ being in the bread or gravy or whatever. She needs it because she is sick. She needs it because she has to live with my father. That one makes no sense to me! It hasn't killed her yet. She is eating just a little bit. Or her allergies are not the same as ours. Excuses. Always excuses. And yet she whines about the physical ailments brought about by eating this stuff. She knew of some food allergies when I was a kid. Back then she hadn't had a blood test and just knew of some by process of elimination. So we'd go out to eat and she'd announce, "Don't let me eat ____, it will make me sick." But then the food would come and she'd start diving right into what she was allergic to. We'd try to warn her but she'd snip that she was an adult and all that. So we'd let it go. And then she'd start complaining that her throat was closing up and yet at us for letting her eat it. It got to where nobody even cared any more. It was almost like a game with her. Very annoying. SignatureSee my webpage: http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm > You should spend a day with me, and see how many people are incapable of > doing this. It's not low carb vs low fat for most people. It's losing a > pound so far this week, then eating a whole bag of Oreos watching TV after > dinner because they can't stop, and gaining all the weight back. But if they're eating high carb, OF COURSE they've got that reaction to biscuits! It's only when you low carb that you get freedom from that kind of addiction. Besides, what do their meters tell them those things are doing to them? That's your other line of attack in helping them to lose weight. Nicky. SignatureA1c 10.5/5.4/<6 T2 DX 05/2004 1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine 95/74/72Kg > Susan, > > Actually I would characterize their 2002 statement as > cautious...There have been so many food fads that haven't panned out > over the last 20 years, one must have a healthy degree of skepticism > about any current fad. As a patient I can't afford to be "cautious" in the way you are pointing out. I need to have a plan in place today, something that works. Carb lowering (while making sure I get all the nutrients I need) works very well both for diabetic control/maintenance and weight loss. I don't have 20 years to wait while the ADA are "cautious". I have a bigger stake in my life than you or any other medical professional. My limbs, eyes, kidneys, heart etc are more important to me than they are to you et al. If experience could show me that my best interests are at the forefront of a doctors agenda then I may be tempted to try something else. Apart from a small few in the medical community my needs were not met in a realistic fashion. If I hadn't got off my butt and researched diabetes treatment myself I would be the same fat lump swallowing more and more meds with my A1c's, triglycerides and kidney function tests being sub optimal. I once got congratulated in hospital for a fasting level of 8.0. As it stands I have seen far too many type 2 diabetics in real life who are following their doctor's recommendations and they are paying dearly, some with their life. This pushing of high carbs is inexucasable. I, and many others will not tolerate being given incorrect "medication", becasue that is what it boils down to. I will not be talked into medications or more medications to cover the damage, nor will I buy into the crap that you can't get all the nutrition you need unless you eat high carbs when those of us who are proactive know otherwise. There are low carb alternatives to everything that is necessary for good nutrition. So either the professionals believe in what they they are pushing, which is extremely scary or they quite simply don't give a rat's arse about the individual's prgression. We might be "healthy" because of the high carb way but the diabetic complications are inevitable. > If low carb works so well, why are we fatter than ever ? Who is fatter? The group who choose lower carb? The people who have believed the low-fat, high-carb propaganda? The diabetics who are laughing their butts off because the ADA gave them permission to still eat high carb? > The 'research' in food, diet, appetite, and energy handling is > currently in the dark ages. > > What is pretty clear is that the North America and Europe are in the > midst of an obesity crisis, and most of the 'powers that be' are > still in denial. Any truthful fat person will tell you how they got fat. > ADA, in its advocacy function, is trying to sound the alarm, but most > of our legislato |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message