Never ever forget, hope is a good thing.

Never ever forget, hope is a good thing, and a good thing never dies. We offer more than hope. We offer a true and honest way to reverse type two diabetes. We offer a true way for all diabetics to reduce medication and gain more reliable and better control. We cannot lose, because we speak the truth and the truth will always win in the end.

Eddie

Totally agree Eddie, the solution is simple but many look for the hard way first.
What I will say though is that whilst I am a fan of LCHF and would never argue otherwise, I've often thought that the title itself sometimes harms the cause. Please understand, I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with a high fat diet and would happily eat bacon all day long but that's because I've learnt and investigated this myself. What I'm trying to say is that nobody has ever suggested cutting carbs is a bad thing but the arguments is always over what to replace them with. Joe Public have been brain washed for years that "fats" are bad and that is our hurdle. It's just the terminology in my opinion that stops the good message getting across to many more people. It's a shame that people associate the word "fat" as a negative but in my experience, they do.
Anyway, that doesn't mean we give up the fight, it just makes our job a little harder sometimes ! Does anyone else feel the same way ?

mo1905 wrote:Totally agree Eddie, the solution is simple but many look for the hard way first.
What I will say though is that whilst I am a fan of LCHF and would never argue otherwise, I've often thought that the title itself sometimes harms the cause. Please understand, I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with a high fat diet and would happily eat bacon all day long but that's because I've learnt and investigated this myself. What I'm trying to say is that nobody has ever suggested cutting carbs is a bad thing but the arguments is always over what to replace them with. Joe Public have been brain washed for years that "fats" are bad and that is our hurdle. It's just the terminology in my opinion that stops the good message getting across to many more people. It's a shame that people associate the word "fat" as a negative but in my experience, they do.
Anyway, that doesn't mean we give up the fight, it just makes our job a little harder sometimes ! Does anyone else feel the same way ?

Yes Mo, I agree with you.  As I said on another thread recently, I discovered LCHF a little differently to most of you.  I gradually swapped foods and drinks for healthier alternatives and started doing this a few years before I became diabetic.  Doing this for myself, without guidance, I made some mistakes.  When I was hungry because I had cut down drastically on the amount of carbs I ate previously, I increased the amount of protein.  This was fine at first because I probably hadn't eaten enough protein anyway.  However, I took it too far (not knowing any better) and my kidneys were affected and my blood pressure shot up (240/180).  This was the start of me stepping onto the medicine merry-go-round.  Eventually I was taking 6 tablets (4 of them blood pressure tablets)  So, having too much protein wasn't good for me; I turned to fats.  I was already eating the 'right' ones, but I started to increase the amounts.  Then I stumbled upon a diabetes forum (by this time I had been diabetic for 2 years) and learnt there was a name for this - LCHF.  

Now to me the HF bit has always made sense because I knew the problems with having way too much protein and I knew I had to cut carbs.  So the name 'LCHF' - I like it because it immediately confronts the thinking that 'low-fat' spreads etc. are good.  I dislike it because people have visions of eating blocks of lard.  I think it's necessary to use the whole title (with an accompanying explanation if appropriate) because the whole problem with 'diets' is that you don't feel satiated, and therefore they fail.  That's why the HF bit is important and that's what makes LCHF a way of life and not a diet.  

So whilst I understand the reservations some people have with the title LCHF, it's an honest description of what we eat, so how could we call it anything else?

edit: I should mention that since following LCHF I have lost some weight (though not enough yet) and am now only taking one drug and that is for depression.

That's the problem lol ! The title is correct and doesn't need changing. It's just people's perception of the word "fat" that needs changing which I don't think is helped by the word itself ! I'm perhaps not getting this across to well but I hope people sort of get what I'm saying even if they disagree.

mo1905 wrote:That's the problem lol ! The title is correct and doesn't need changing. It's just people's perception of the word "fat" that needs changing which I don't think is helped by the word itself ! I'm perhaps not getting this across to well but I hope people sort of get what I'm saying even if they disagree.

lol.  I get what you're saying.  I just don't get 'people'.  If what they have always done before hasn't worked, why can't they see it's their perceptions and attitudes that need changing?  Perhaps writing 100 lines  'FAT IS GOOD'?

The only small downside that I can see with the term 'High fat' is the low carb anti's jibes about "Eating blocks of lard and whale blubber" but even then it don't matter one iota as we're used to such low life misconceptions from them when they've lost the argument although another term I like just as equally is 'Low Carb Healthy Fat"

I agree Paul and I still believe in the lifestyle but unfortunately most people view the word "fat" in a negative light. I'm not suggesting it needs changing or anything and I'm still positive it works but I've always felt it was an unfortunate term which may have been accepted easier if "fat" was called something else. Silly I know but just my opinion.

Yes I was discussing this with my son after I left this thread yesterday and he said very much the same thing. Being 'fat' is seen as bad and therefore eating 'fats' makes you fat and is a bad thing too. So 'low' fats must be healthier because there's less of them. There's a sort of logic there, until you look at when we all started getting fatter which was when orange juice, toast and cereal became favourites at breakfast time and when the 'low-fat' craze started.

He gave me a humorous DVD on this very subject a few years ago, but someone seems to have 'put it away in a safe place' It was very good at questioning peoples' perceptions, by using a similar thought process to that used with fats. One of the lines in it was 'I am too short. Basketball players are all tall. I will start playing basketball so that I become taller'

Sadly I don't think most people will listen to the LCHF message until they have tried everything else and failed.

Corrupt commercial interests have vilified saturated healthy fats for decades. Cheap grains and food loaded with sugar kept the populous going, working in the factories, offices and shops. Now it has backfired big time, so many becoming ill from eating the cheapo fodder. And when they fall ill, our good friends at big pharma have all the answers.

The book called The Politics of Food was written some twenty years ago and highlights the extremely cosy relationship between Members of Parliament and the food industry. It was  staggering to learn, that in 1987, when the sugar industry was coming under attack, no less than 64 M.P.s were involved in the promotion of the sugar industry and its high sugar using customers. Michael Shersby M. P. was not only the Chairman of the Conservative backbench committee on food and drink, he was also the Director-General of the Sugar Bureau.

It is also a fact many experts advising the government on food have to sign the official secrets act. When a scientist queried this and stated "I have to sign the official secrets act to advise on a sausage" he was informed it had to be done because companies wanted to protect their trade secrets. I expect an analytical chemist could tell you exactly what's in a Walls pork without too much trouble.

Over the last forty years or so many of the large trials and studies on food and diet have been sponsored by large food companies and their associated trade bodies and conglomerations. As you would expect, findings and results have been heavily biased towards commercial interests and considerations. Would a large international company spend huge sums of money so that the end result would be to rubbish their own products ?

So, there you have it, a complete catastrophe, but what an earner. There are laws controlling cigarettes, alcohol, and illegal street drugs, but you can sell kids complete junk in the name of food all day long, and that's cool.

Welcome to the crazy world of obesity and the very often linked type two diabetes, which was once an old man's disease, and now becoming main streamed for teenagers.