BDA dietitian says It's time to start eating carbs again:

'Carbs are seen by many as the "devil" food, but any dietitian will tell you they are an essential part of a healthy, balanced diet - the general guidance is they should make up a third of our intake,' says Helen Bond, spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association.

'They are a ready source of fuel for the body. Cutting them out can cause headaches, tiredness and lethargy. You won't be able to perform so well during exercise and concentration is likely to be affected, too, because carbohydrates also fuel the brain.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

The Southport GP Dr Unwin has also contributed backing LC 

Thanks. I hadn't realised Dr Unwin was mentioned in the article until you pointed it out.

All I would say to anyone is try it. I have more energy the less carbs I eat. I don't need scientists to tell me what my body needs. My body is quite capable of letting me know what it likes best.

graham64 wrote:'Carbs are seen by many as the "devil" food, but any dietitian will tell you they are an essential part of a healthy, balanced diet - the general guidance is they should make up a third of our intake,' says Helen Bond, spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association.

'They are a ready source of fuel for the body. Cutting them out can cause headaches, tiredness and lethargy. You won't be able to perform so well during exercise and concentration is likely to be affected, too, because carbohydrates also fuel the brain.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

The Southport GP Dr Unwin has also contributed backing LC 

Ho Ho Ho here we go again, she is on the big pharma junk food payroll it would appear.

"she started her own business and took on the position of Consultant Dietitian. She currently provides assistance to one of the world’s largest research based pharmaceutical companies, several top name food companies, Public Relations (PR) consultancies and marketing agencies"

Who would have thunk it!

Link to information here https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/helen-bond/29/3aa/977

"because carbohydrates also fuel the brain" Complete nonsense glucose (a small is amount required which can be obtained from proteins)  and ketones fuel the brain. Has this "expert" never heard of  Gluconeogenesis.

"Gluconeogenesis (GNG) is a metabolic pathway that results in the generation of glucose from non-carbohydrate carbon substrates such as pyruvate, lactate, glycerol, and glucogenic amino acids. While primarily odd-chain fatty acids can be converted into glucose" Wiki

Out of curiosity what's the story about blood pH?

"But Catherine Collins, principal dietitian at St George's Hospital, in South-West London, is sceptical.
'A very low-carb, high-fat diet induces a condition called ketosis, where the body starts to convert fat and protein into fatty acids called ketones for energy, at the same time attempting to make blood sugar from some proteins,' she says.
'Ketosis alters the pH of the blood, making it more acidic. The Paleo community says that's a good thing but, in fact, we know that the body likes the blood to be slightly alkaline - that's the ideal state for almost every bodily process."

sanguine wrote:Out of curiosity what's the story about blood pH?

"But Catherine Collins, principal dietitian at St George's Hospital, in South-West London, is sceptical.
'A very low-carb, high-fat diet induces a condition called ketosis, where the body starts to convert fat and protein into fatty acids called ketones for energy, at the same time attempting to make blood sugar from some proteins,' she says.
'Ketosis alters the pH of the blood, making it more acidic. The Paleo community says that's a good thing but, in fact, we know that the body likes the blood to be slightly alkaline - that's the ideal state for almost every bodily process."

Sounds like another dietitian who needs education on the difference between ketosis and ketoacidosis to me. A healthy human body will regulate blood acidity within a tight range without dietary intervention.

http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/ketoacidosis.html

http://chriskresser.com/the-ph-myth-part-1/
http://chriskresser.com/the-acid-alkaline-myth-part-2/

Indy51 wrote:

sanguine wrote:Out of curiosity what's the story about blood pH?

"But Catherine Collins, principal dietitian at St George's Hospital, in South-West London, is sceptical.
'A very low-carb, high-fat diet induces a condition called ketosis, where the body starts to convert fat and protein into fatty acids called ketones for energy, at the same time attempting to make blood sugar from some proteins,' she says.
'Ketosis alters the pH of the blood, making it more acidic. The Paleo community says that's a good thing but, in fact, we know that the body likes the blood to be slightly alkaline - that's the ideal state for almost every bodily process."

Sounds like another dietitian who needs education on the difference between ketosis and ketoacidosis to me. A healthy human body will regulate blood acidity within a tight range without dietary intervention.

http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/ketoacidosis.html

Thanks Jill! I remember certain folks at DCUK trying to wind me up about acidic blood every time I mentioned being in Ketosis,I saw that as ignorance or deliberate scaremongering...I'm nearly 3 years into ketosis and I haven't carked it yet!!

Brilliant thanks Indy

sanguine wrote:Out of curiosity what's the story about blood pH?

"But Catherine Collins, principal dietitian at St George's Hospital, in South-West London, is sceptical.
'A very low-carb, high-fat diet induces a condition called ketosis, where the body starts to convert fat and protein into fatty acids called ketones for energy, at the same time attempting to make blood sugar from some proteins,' she says.
'Ketosis alters the pH of the blood, making it more acidic. The Paleo community says that's a good thing but, in fact, we know that the body likes the blood to be slightly alkaline - that's the ideal state for almost every bodily process."

Time after time we see senior BDA dietitians and so called experts demonstrating they do not have even a rudimentary knowledge of metabolism. Or, they do know, but use scare tactics and lies to assist their big pharma and junk food paymasters. So bad has the situation got in the US, a group of dietitians have formed an outfit called dietitians 'for integrity'

"This website was created to let you know more about who we are and why we do not think Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kellogg's, and other Big Food giants should sponsor the country's largest nutrition organization.

Our efforts are guided by professional integrity. We believe the American public deserves nutrition information that is not tainted by food industry interests. Those of us who co-founded Dietitians for Professional Integrity are nutrition experts first and foremost; we went to school to help people achieve better health through food, not to help multinational food companies sell more unhealthy products" http://integritydietitians.org/

Most US dietitians are owned by junk food, I am beginning to think the same applies one way or anther in the UK.

This is what puzzles me; she says carbs "are an essential part of a healthy, balanced diet."

She's a dietician and presumably knows that the word 'essential' has a specific meaning in nutrition. It means the substance cannot be independently created by the body and so must be eaten. Proteins and minerals and certain vitamins fall within that definition.

Carbohydrates do not; there are no carbohydrate deficiency diseases. Carbohydrates are a ready source of glucose but as has been said above glucose can be manufactured by the body. So carbohydrates are not essential and neither is glucose. Yet still she uses that word. Why?

I imagine she's using it in a non-scientific way meaning 'really important'. But if they are non-essential in a scientific context then how can they be 'really important' in general terms?

How can you describe carbs in a nutritional way? I suppose they are an easy source of glucose for the body. Is that 'good' though? Not for diabetics obviously, but for other people? Possibly, but in light of what we know about insulin responses to them and the obesity epidemic sweeping the west I would suggest not.

To stretch an analogy a bit an 'easy' way for me to lose weight would be to chainsaw my arm off. Perfect BMI in seconds. But could I really say chainsaws are an essential part of any healthy balanced weight loss routine?

Either she is hopelessly ignorant of her expert subject or she is being deliberately misleading. I'm not sure which is worse.

Best

Dillinger

It gets worse. By Sian Porter who has links to food companies etc.

From the NHS website 'Truth About Carbs'

Diabetes UK says there is some evidence which suggests that low-carb diets can lead to weight loss and improvements in blood glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes in the short term. However, it is unclear whether the diet is a safe and effective way to manage type 2 diabetes in the long term.
Weight loss from a low-carb diet may be because of a reduced intake of calories overall and not specifically as a result of eating less carbohydrate. There is also not enough evidence to support the use of low-carb diets in people with type 1 diabetes.

Douglas Twenefour, Diabetes UK clinical adviser, says: “When considering a low-carbohydrate diet as an option, people with diabetes should be made aware of possible side effects such as the risk of hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar). We also advise that people with diabetes discuss the amount of carbohydrate to be restricted with their healthcare team.

“The best way to manage diabetes is by taking prescribed medications and by maintaining a healthy lifestyle that includes plenty of physical activity and a balanced diet that is low in saturated fat, salt and sugar and rich in fruit and vegetables, without completely cutting out any particular food groups.”

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/the-truth-about-carbs.aspx

"When considering a low-carbohydrate diet as an option, people with diabetes should be made aware of possible side effects such as the risk of hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar)."

More confusion. No diet causes hypos, it's medication that can cause hypos.

Loose Cannon wrote:

More confusion. No diet causes hypos, it's medication that can cause hypos.

This is something I've been thinking about recently; the obsession with hypos by our HCPs. I think that the only reason that Type 1's get test strips is to counter the fear of hypos; it has nothing to do with getting your blood sugars lower. I've been told my bloods are 'too low' even though they are higher than a non-diabetics.

The fear of night time hypos in Type 1's is I think a major factor for messing up control; all that advice to keep your bloods at 10 before you go to bed (someone reported just this from a nurse on DUK) is crazy.

I am still prone to this though; I worry that if I go to bed bed with normal blood sugars I'll hypo when I know that if I correct 'normal blood' sugars I'll wake up with bloods in the teens. That sort of concern is just not helpful to controlling blood sugars and it is virtually criminally negligent to tell a Type 2 who is not on insulin or other blood sugar lowering medication that their bloods are too low. You will not hypo on metformin.

Best

Dillinger

"you will not hypo on metformin"
I've always believed this too, even though many argue they can, and have. I suppose it's what you define as a hypo. If it just means low BG levels, I'm sure they can, just as non-diabetics ( muggles ) can. The difference being their own bodies will recognise these low levels and dump glucose to quickly restore to "normal" levels. I totally agree that test strips are more for preventing hypos. We're encouraged to maintain levels higher than "normal". The DVLA also focus's mainly on hypo's. I've been told twice by a consultant my HbA1C was too low. Crazy !

Dillinger wrote:This is what puzzles me; she says carbs "are an essential part of a healthy, balanced diet."

She's a dietician and presumably knows that the word 'essential' has a specific meaning in nutrition. It means the substance cannot be independently created by the body and so must be eaten. Proteins and minerals and certain vitamins fall within that definition.

Carbohydrates do not; there are no carbohydrate deficiency diseases. Carbohydrates are a ready source of glucose but as has been said above glucose can be manufactured by the body. So carbohydrates are not essential and neither is glucose. Yet still she uses that word. Why?

I imagine she's using it in a non-scientific way meaning 'really important'. But if they are non-essential in a scientific context then how can they be 'really important' in general terms?

How can you describe carbs in a nutritional way? I suppose they are an easy source of glucose for the body. Is that 'good' though? Not for diabetics obviously, but for other people? Possibly, but in light of what we know about insulin responses to them and the obesity epidemic sweeping the west I would suggest not.

To stretch an analogy a bit an 'easy' way for me to lose weight would be to chainsaw my arm off. Perfect BMI in seconds. But could I really say chainsaws are an essential part of any healthy balanced weight loss routine?

Either she is hopelessly ignorant of her expert subject or she is being deliberately misleading. I'm not sure which is worse.

Best

Dillinger

Great post as usual. Makes total sense.

mo1905 wrote:"you will not hypo on metformin"
I've always believed this too, even though many argue they can, and have. I suppose it's what you define as a hypo. If it just means low BG levels, I'm sure they can, just as non-diabetics ( muggles ) can. The difference being their own bodies will recognise these low levels and dump glucose to quickly restore to "normal" levels. I totally agree that test strips are more for preventing hypos. We're encouraged to maintain levels higher than "normal". The DVLA also focus's mainly on hypo's. I've been told twice by a consultant my HbA1C was too low. Crazy !

I reckon many do not know the difference between a hypo and a hippo. What many report is a false hypo i.e their usual BG is very high say well over ten even as high as twenty. They drop down to numbers way above what is normal non diabetic and feel terrible. This makes sense to me. Seven years on Metformin and my lowest recorded BG number 4.1 and I felt no difference whatsoever from when at 5 or 6.

It seems to me many diabetics shoot insulin and adjust food and especially carbs to suit the meds, rather than adjust medication to suit the food.

Loose Cannon wrote:More confusion. No diet causes hypos, it's medication that can cause hypos.

Eddie do you remember this thread started by Hana, kenny said any diabetic can get hypos even those on diet alone

It's the medication that's dangerous

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/its-the-medication-thats-dangerous.12062/

graham64 wrote:

Loose Cannon wrote:More confusion. No diet causes hypos, it's medication that can cause hypos.

Eddie do you remember this thread started by Hana, kenny said any diabetic can get hypos even those on diet alone

It's the medication that's dangerous

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/its-the-medication-thats-dangerous.12062/

First time I've seen this old thread,Old kenny '4 is the floooooor' at his best eh?

Paul wrote:First time I've seen this old thread,Old kenny '4 is the floooooor' at his best eh? 

I had a few exchanges with kenny and the cherub on that thread, funny thing is it's one of the few kenny didn't edit or delete any posts.

Quite an enlightening thread that in many ways.

And there was me naively thinking that the liver kicks in naturally if it thinks BGs are too low.

There are those who suffer from Reactive Hypoglycaemia where carbs cause big swings from high to low BG and I know some use LCHF to control it.

lol I'm half way through that old thread. It's extremely entertaining. I think at least one person is muddling up the term 'hypo aware' with 'hypochondriac'. Yes, I felt a little shaky at times before I was a diabetic when I needed to eat something. This isn't the same as a life threatening hypo that T1's can get though. I'm sorry, it just isn't!


I used to suffer from sudden drops in BP which caused me to faint. The act of fainting raised my BP. Problem solved. The body is wonderful at sorting out this type of thing, as long as you don't complicate things with drugs.

Well I've read the whole thread now.

My conclusion is that you guys who were dealing with this kind of stuff day in, day out, deserve a medal. I didn't realise quite how tough it was for you back then. That thread really does show it up for what it was.

Thanks from me.

The first 450 pages of that thread were quite interesting but it then began to drag. I quite liked how the conversation/argument was relatively well informed. Now we just have Sid complaining that someone has written a book for money which he has not read.

What did strike me was Cuglia's footer; "Everything in moderation........." It's like Noblehead is a royalist in the time of Cromwell and is having to subtly show his allegiance to the once and future king...

Off with their heads.

Best

Dillinger

zand wrote:Well I've read the whole thread now.  

My conclusion is that you guys who were dealing with this kind of stuff day in, day out, deserve a medal.  I didn't realise quite how tough it was for you back then.  That thread really does show it up for what it was.  

Thanks from me.  

Zand something I wrote over a year ago on the blog and some comments that came in. This is the mild stuff. Graham and other members here know a photograph of our house was placed on the Internet on a thread called burn his house down, some of our kids have been targeted with grim stuff and evidently I am a closet homosexual. My real name and photograph is out there and I have offered to meet some of the anonymous cowards, no one wants to take me up. Four threats of legal action and two calls from the Police. Will I ever back down? yes, when I am dead, and others will continue to fight for a true and honest cause. Many have helped, backed and supported me for years, they know exactly what I am, and what I am not.

Countless great people and many of my friends have been banned from the flog, the lunatics took over the asylum years ago. Banning me and many of my friends was the biggest mistake they ever made.

I started the New Year the way I intend to carry on !

Just before the New Year, it dawned on me I had become a bit soft. Contrary to what some may believe, I had held back for years, on some of my views regarding the low carb antis and spreaders of fear and misinformation, and the out and out liars at the forum diabetes.co.uk. The sort of miscreants that got the insulin and type two thread locked last week. As I said at the beginning of the New Year, there was to be no more Mr. Nice guy, hence the ratcheting up of pressure on the bad guys.

To be fair, the carb addicted cover it with pumps and meds brigade, see me as Beelzebub reincarnated, as they demonstrate with the comments below, received and authorised on the blog over the last 24 hours. Do you know what I find interesting ? never once in five years has an anti come onto this blog and offered one sound or intelligent comment,(other than Brett) as to why low carb is not a sound way to control diabetes. I know why that is, it is because they have no sound argument to offer. They cannot deal with a level playing field, they cannot rely on thread locking, getting members banned, deletion and alteration of posts, or screaming rape and running to know nothings about good diabetes control, extremely inexperienced, and in some cases, bent mods.

BTW It was CatherineCherub that used the forum troll name butterfly on diabetes.co.uk and forum name butterfly on Carbo’s cess pit, together with the troll name silverfox, who was in fact Cugila the chief mod, who conspired with others (three guesses who they were) to get Graham banned.

As Corporal Jones used to say in the great TV series Dads Army "they don't like it up 'em" nor do the low carb anti's that's for sure.


Anonymous said...

Hey Eddie, you are one bitter f**ked up twisted individual who obviously has never been loved .. just for the record, were you abused as a child or did you abuse others Eddie? More likely other, eh Eddie?
Once a bully always a bully....keep on with your bitter twisted anger rants... your heart attack is on its way...

Anonymous said...

I don't know about thinking outside the box, you would probably be better inside one, a padded cell or a coffin spring to mind.

Anonymous said..
.
You never got over the butterfly showing you up for what you are just before you got banned from DCUK.

You are a sad old man with a life filled with regret and booze and pasting and copying articles. Your only outlet is to ridicule people. Another one who needs to get a life.

I don't have the time to answer this as fully as it deserves. I would just like to say:-

"Anonymous said...

Hey Eddie, you are one bitter f**ked up twisted individual who obviously has never been loved .. just for the record, were you abused as a child...?

!!!!! What an idiot!!!! lolol If that's where their thinking leads them...as my dear old Mum would have said "These people are to be pitied!"

Thanks Zand back in the early days, some stuff got to me, not any more. The flog was the first forum I ever joined, how green I was, I never knew a world of that level of stupidity, skulduggery and dishonesty ever existed before. That being said, some great members helped me and so many others, all sadly left or banned. Unfortunately some of the worst are still there, some even promoted to mods.

But hey, I am still waiting for a sound argument as to why our lifestyle is a dud. The good news is over the last seven years so many straight and honest healthcare professionals have come over to our side. No names no pack drill, you would be amazed at some of the big names who have contacted or followed me over the years. As healthcare professionals they have to follow the rules etc. and keep away from the bun fights. But for sure, some have got one great sense of humour and see the method in the madness (well some of it)

Dillinger wrote:

What did strike me was Cuglia's footer; "Everything in moderation........." It's like Noblehead is a royalist in the time of Cromwell and is having to subtly show his allegiance to the once and future king...

Off with their heads.

Best

Dillinger

Even down to the extra long ellipsis............at the end.........and in between...............sentences..............now that's what I call................attention to detail.............and devotion to the puppet master............. !!