Bonkers Back to his Barking Best !

The $64000 questions are why were those threads allowed to continue for so long, and what changed for them to be suddenly locked ? Personally I find the wind up and tales of mega woe threads funny, but the confusion to the newly diagnosed never seems to be taken into consideration.

Regards Eddie

eddie1 wrote:The $64000 questions are why were those threads allowed to continue for so long, and what changed for them to be suddenly locked ? Personally I find the wind up and tales of mega woe threads funny, but the confusion to the newly diagnosed never seems to be taken into consideration.

Regards Eddie

I think my favourite types of threads are those by forum "Vicki Pollard types" - you know, they have a problem, someone suggests a solution and their response is always "yeah, but..." followed by a million excuses of why the solution suggested couldn't possibly work for them, even thought it's worked for many other people

Another much quoted saying is "we are all different" that drives me nuts !

Regards Eddie

eddie1 wrote:Another much quoted saying is "we are all different" that drives me nuts !

Regards Eddie

Everything in moderation, Eddie. Apart from saying 'everything in moderation' which you should never say.

Best

Dillinger

eddie1 wrote:Another much quoted saying is "we are all different" that drives me nuts !

Regards Eddie

same here grrr, but then we are all different, maybe some people like it

.

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/confused.63650/

Another storm brewing with an innocent newcomer caught in the crossfire.

sanguine wrote:http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/confused.63650/

Another storm brewing with an innocent newcomer caught in the crossfire.

Unbelievable!! But then again I can believe it and that's why I rarely post there now!

That pot noodle guy is out to lunch, but hey, he always was. Look at the high BG numbers he almost boasts about. He is only there for the wind up, that's plain for all to see. Three years on and he is clueless.

Regards Eddie

Bring back the Norse God OOOOOOOOSIIIIDDDDGGGGEEEEE !!!!!

mo1905 wrote:Bring back the Norse God OOOOOOOOSIIIIDDDDGGGGEEEEE !!!!!

Or as I like to call him 'The Terminator' as when he turns up "You're Terminated!" (Threads that is) and you can guarantee at some point "He'll be BACK!!"

It's difficult not to post to be honest. I'm sitting on my hands ! Must resist lol ! So frustrating !

I'm on best behavior for now! lol Got a board warning from the big chief a few days ago for my post that complained about all the 'Word games' and the like spamming the new and recent posts feed!

Jack, Douglas and me just got included in a PM from phoenix. Yes you can damage your eyes from wild fluctuations if you already have developed retinopathy, but very very unlikely for a new T2 - normally associated with sudden insulin or med changes in T1s apparently. The study quoted by phoenix suggested that more than a 2% drop in HbA1c over 6 months could be a problem if you already showed retinopathy.

But that's not how Douglas was portraying it in the thread (if he was referring to the same study). As I read it the implication was that you can't suddenly go low carb in case you damaged your eyes.

I just feel sorry for the OP ! Poor fella must be totally confused now !

mo1905 wrote:I just feel sorry for the OP ! Poor fellamust be totally confused now !

It's a fairlybregular thing isn't it that a genuine query becomes an excuse for an attack. Very supportive.

mo1905 wrote:I just feel sorry for the OP ! Poor fellamust be totally confused now !

I know mate! I was lucky that the replies to my first post over there were positive and helpful...No place for wind ups and squabbling in a newbies first thread under any circumstances I reckon! (Unless it's a kitchen advert of course!)

paul1976 wrote:

mo1905 wrote:I just feel sorry for the OP ! Poor fellamust be totally confused now !

I know mate! I was lucky that the replies to my first post over there were positive and helpful...No place for wind ups and squabbling in a newbies first thread under any circumstances I reckon! (Unless it's a kitchen advert of course!)

Agree in principle but if someone comes and says something from left field like that you can hardly let it lie. I don't think the mods are interested in removing individual posts unless it's an obvious spam or snake-oil seller.

If any of my fist posts had 'gone bad' I would have never come back.

That happened recently. One poor lady actually posted to say how disgusted she was, and that she was not going to come back.

Very sad.

sanguine wrote:Jack, Douglas and me just got included in a PM from phoenix.  Yes you can damage your eyes from wild fluctuations if you already have developed retinopathy, but very very unlikely for a new T2 - normally associated with sudden insulin or med changes in T1s apparently.  The study quoted by phoenix suggested that more than a 2% drop in HbA1c over 6 months could be a problem if you already showed retinopathy.

But that's not how Douglas was portraying it in the thread (if he was referring to the same study).  As I read it the implication was that you can't suddenly go low carb in case you damaged your eyes.  

Many type two diabetics are showing signs of complications at diagnosis. Mild retinopathy is common. It is often said many type two's have been diabetics for years without knowing, I have seen numbers ranging from ten to as high as fifteen years in some extreme cases. Going from BG numbers in the mid twenties to fours and fives in a mater of days can cause eye damage and not always repairable.

Words of Prof. Roy Taylor Diabetes expert who uses this graph in his presentations.

"We move on to consider type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is somewhat different. The retinopathy plateau here is less, 65%. Why might that be? In the previous example when you saw that the prevalence of serious retinopathy declined with increasing duration, that's not because it's getting better. Unfortunately the people with the complication die. The others are the survivors. But in type 2 diabetes we have a rapid attrition, a high mortality, and the prevalence would actually continue to rise if we were plotting it as a cumulative figure"



To see the full presentation by Professor Roy Taylor, MD, FRCP you need to be a Medscape member. It takes a couple of minutes to sign up, anyone can join and the site has a massive amount of information. http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/460902_4

Regards Eddie

We have always posted a disclaimer warning of the dangers of lowering BG to quickly due possible damage to the eyes, suggesting  it's very very unlikely for a newly diagnosed T2 to incur eye damage is irresponsible to say the least.

I'm at loss to understand why a T1 is continually interfering in matters relating to T2s especially LowCarbers, it's not gone unnoticed that they never venture into T1 LowCarb discussions.

That's what I love about this forum we can co-exist peacefully with like minded LC T1 LowCarbers

graham64 wrote:We have always posted a disclaimer warning of the dangers of lowering BG to quickly due possible damage to the eyes, suggesting  it's very very unlikely for a newly diagnosed T2 to incur eye damage is irresponsible to say the least.

My apologies Graham - nobody has actually posted that statement, that was me reading between too many lines. I wasn't aware of that disclaimer and the subject is not something that I have noticed before when discussing rapid improvements in HbA1c with T2s - and there is at least one I can think of with 4-5% improvement in 3 months. I think I would have noticed because I never did get my retinopathy check from the surgery as promised by the DN. When I asked several times about it, the answer from reception was always 'you'll hear soon, it's someone from the local hospital who comes periodically'. I'll certainly raise it whenI see the DN again in a month's time. Meanwhile I had my eyes tested myself through my optician - no retinopathy, nor was there at my last checkup 18 months ago (pre-diagnosis but presumably 'uncontrolled diabetic' at that time).

Apologies again for any confusion. Still learning ...

Rod

Graham's comments were not aimed at you. They were aimed at a certain individual at the other place on a high carb diet, insulin, a pump and all the advantages, who spends a lot of her time cleverly undermining low carb and winding up type two diabetics. This person has Hope Warshaw as a guru. Check out Hope here. http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2011/06/28/7199/type-2-diabetes-from-old-dogmas-to-new-realities---part-2/#commentpost

From Hope Warshaw.

"Old Dogma: People with type 2 diabetes should follow a low carbohydrate diet.
New Reality: Nutrition recommendations for people with type 2 diabetes from the American Diabetes Association and other health authorities echo the recently unveiled U.S. 2010 Dietary Guidelines (1/31/11) for carbohydrate : about 45 to 65 percent of calories. (Americans currently eat about 45 to 50 percent of calories as carbohydrate--not a "high carb" intake.)"

Kind regards Eddie

Well, Eddie,
I checked out Hope! Unbelievable! My fave bit was:

Countless research studies do not show long term (greater than six months to a year) benefit of low carb diets on blood glucose, weight control, or blood fats. People with type 2 diabetes, like the general public, should lighten up on added sugars and sweets (yes, they're carbohydrate). They should eat sufficient amounts of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low fat dairy foods--all healthy sources of carbohydrate. - See more at: http://diabeteshealth.com/read/2011/06/28/7199/type-2-diabetes-from-old-dogmas-to-new-realities---part-2/#sthash.ozisEoW7.dpuf
Ok, I'll go back to eating 45-65% carbs and watch my bs rocket and the lbs pile back on! Because somehow I don't think I'd be able to follow the second part of her advice (heaven preserve us) if I did as she advocates above!

Bottom line: The most important new reality for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes is: Take action as early as possible after diagnosis. Don't delay, don't deny. Get and keep your blood glucose, blood pressure, and blood cholesterol into recommended target zones.

- See more at: http://diabeteshealth.com/read/2011/06/28/7199/type-2-diabetes-from-old-dogmas-to-new-realities---part-2/#sthash.ozisEoW7.dpuf

The old adage " better to remain silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and leave folks in no doubt!" Springs to mind!

re the previous 2 posts. The problem with that particular contributor to the other forum is that she almost always backs up what she is saying with scientific reports, so it looks credible. Yes, I've bothered to read 1 or 2 of them looking for the flaws in the science because I knew from my own experience that the 'scientific' conclusions were so wrong. I can understand why some people would simply take what she writes as the truth when it is backed up in this way. OK, I'm cynical, scientific research has to be paid for by someone, what's their motive? Anecdotal evidence is often frowned upon, but listening to snippets of advice from people who have been in the same situation as me has been very useful to me when dealing with diabetes and other health issues.