Call me scrooge

[tabbypurr]

typical of the NHS to offer a treatment plan that doesn't work.

[Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer]

If you're happy with the constipation that comes with a high meat diet, then do just that.

OTOH, if you wish to keep things moving smoothly, then All Bran is a winner.

[Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer]

The history of a large proportion of carbs in the diet coincided with a much smaller total quantity.

[Max Demian]

Or lubricate your system with liquid paraffin. (You can use the same stuff as a hair oil.)

[Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer]

Cor! Strike a light!

[whisky-dave]

Them don't give money to people that aren't registared with the charity they are collecting for.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, they didnt.

That is exactly where you are wrong.

And indeed those that did usually died from heart disease before they developed type II, and it wasnt recognised as such till recently.

Back in te day when I was growing up, a meal conisted of meat or fish and two veg and a fruit pie, and our homes were not heated and we did not own cars, and to do anything at all involved massive amounts of energy and effort that people today would be aghast at.

We could not afford sweets. We did not eat pasta We did not eat rice We did not eat cous cous We did not eat bulgur wheat. We did not eat breadt much - a hovis a week sliced thin with a scraping of jam on it sometimes Pizza wasnt invented. We did not eat cereal either. Cornflakes were american. Porage possibly, but more likely bacon and eggs and toast was breakfast.

Mother ate at home shopped ebery dau (no regfrigetrtorr) and cooked our meals. That was her job. Ther are no processed foods other than what we bottle or dtioed ourselves or a few cans,

There were no ready meals.

No one could afford the service charges of eating out But above all we ate less and exercised more. To even get to the shops involed a two mile walk altogether. We did not own cars and there were no regular busses.

We imported cereals and convenioencce foods from an obese and affluent ameriaca, pasta from the obverwioght italians and rice from the overweight asians.

[The Natural Philosopher]

To be overweight is to have and be able to afford a calorific intake in excess of your requirements. And feel you want to eat it. That is significant.

To be type II diabetic is to be consuming far more carbohydrates than you are burning for energy - especially fast release carbohyrdrates like wheat.

These are not the same thing. As I said you can be fat on a Zero carb diet. Its harder, because carbs are what make you hungry and craving food and sweets - they are addicitive. Eating lots ofp meat and reasonable amounts of fat plus roughage minerals and vitamins *tahts where veg. comes in) will net you the protein, energy and roughage and trace foods you need without you feeling hungry and overeating.

In theory :-)

The correlation of Type II and poverty is significant enough to suggest that cheap foods are high carbohydrate.

Fish ahd chips - tick Burger and chips - tick Pizza - tick.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I suggest you go the the website, look at the papers cited and read them yourself instead of dismissing it out of hand.

And if you still think its a load of crap take it up with the minister of health and tell him the NHS are peddling junk science.

I put it up because it was news to me, well supported by research and I have a problem with insulin resistance that is not uncommon.

I thought it might be of interest to others.

I am not pushing quackery down anyones throat, just making the point that the biochemistry linking carbohydrate intake to type II diabetes is very well supported and now understood, and the linkage between high glucose and insulin levels and heart disease is also well established. And that the linkage between visceral fat - that is not fat arms legs or buttocks but internal belly fat - and chronic high glucose levels is also understood and noted.

Just because you can be fat from other things, doesnt mean that carbohydrates dont make you fat, and just because type II diabetes doesn't necessaarily make you fat, doesnt mean that fat people dont get it.

And finally this is NOT a diet primarily about fat or body weight. It is specifically aimed at controlling insulin and glucose levels in those who have been diagnosed as needing to.

The fact that this nearly always results in a loss of visceral fat, is nice, and a good way to check if its working,. but if you are fat happy and your glucose, cholesterol, blood perssure and insulin levels are normal, fine.

In the end high glucose = too many carbs fat = too many calories, ESPECIALLY CARBS.

Replacng equivalent carb calories with fat or protein calories makes you less hungry.

[dennis]

I wouldn't, it sounds like the opposite of what the NHS recommends ATM.

They say that you need to lose weight if you have type two diabeties and doing it quickly can cause the condition to be reversed.

Like any diet when you are ill check with a professional first not the local philosopher whom probably knows nothing.

[Tim Lamb]

Interesting stuff.

I suspect the NHS was encouraged to put out a general alert to a group they consider vulnerable to type 2 diabetes.

In my case this was mother and sister type 2 sufferers. Family history of fatty liver syndrome, overweight and elderly.

My wife was very quick to take this on board and the sugar pot was replaced by a Sweetex pack (still going so there must be 500 plus in the dispenser). The orange squash disappeared and d-i-y porridge oats arrived with a cup for microwave cooking. Disapproving noises were heard whenever the bread bin was opened but I am allowed toast with soup. (packet soup is surprisingly good).

Over about ten weeks, I lost 10kg and now maintain this without feeling hungry.

[dennis]

But it doesn't work. People losing weight on keto just aren't eating too much. If they eat too much they will gain weight carbs or not.

[John Rumm]

Even that is not always a useful metric.

Contrast and compare:

Charity has a bunch of volunteers who go out collecting, and raise 20K which is handed over to the charity. Charity is happy, it has 20K. Volunteers fell like they did a good thing.

Vs

Charity engages professional fund raising company. They go out collecting and raise 20K. They they spend *all* of that putting on a local high profile fund raising event, tapping up their list of tame celebs for a voluntary appearance, running a social media campaign, local poster and radio adverts, and booking entertainment, security, catering etc. The event is well attended and raises several hundred K, which once all the bills are paid, leaves 200K, from which they pay themselves 60K in fees which not only pays their staff, it also yields a profit, and give 140K to the charity. Into the bargain the event also generated lots of work for local businesses, and some public entertainment.

Now some would argue that the public will have "donated" lots more than ended up in the hands of the charity (although part of the reason for that is they were actually getting something in return rather than just the feel good factor). But the charity now has 140K rather than 20K

[alan_m]

The only safe way is to never give to street/door collectors.

[Max Demian]

But the public is worse off by several hundred K rather than just 20.

[Swer]

Yes they did, particularly with bread, potatoes, cereals and porridge.

That?s not correct either.

That last is not right either and I am older than you.

Most could.

That bit is true.

That?s not, most obviously with rice pudding.

Those are true.

That is just plain wrong.

Pity about bread and dripping.

It had been invented, but was only common in Italy at that time.

But plenty of other cereals werent.

No possibly about it, plenty ate that.

So your claim about bread is wrong.

And you've obviously forgotten cake, scones, biscuits etc etc etc

And then there are the potatoes which you can't ignore.

Clearly wrong with bread and bacon alone.

True.

Have fun explaining the very common tea rooms.

That?s wrong.

That wasn?t true for most.

Correct.

Maybe not for you, but there were for plenty of others.

That?s wrong too.

And didn?t import bread or potatoes in your time, that happened long before that.

Asians werent overweight then.

[Swer]

The massive great slab of multigrain toast that is my only breakfast doesn?t make me hungry or crave food or sweets. I go the entire day without eating anything at all until the evening meal. And I don?t have any tea or coffee at all during the day either. The most I have is a glass of water before going out on a walk for exercise in summer.

Not for me they arent. I do always have that great slab of toast before going out, but I never went without breakfast even back in the days when I had a cereal breakfast followed by a cooked meal, usually fried eggs etc.

Eating lots ofp meat and reasonable amounts of fat plus

[The Natural Philosopher]

My doctor said te same to me, and sent me on this course. They said almost the exact opposite.

That is why I am banging on on about it.

*shrug* who is more likely to be right, those on the cutting edge of nutritional reaearch or my 55 year old GP?

And the received wisdom from the course is that targeting weight is not the answer anyy more than targerting choletesterol with statins will reduce heart problems.

BOTH are symptoms of a general metabolic condition caused by eating more carbs than you can process healthily.

[NY]

You can manage to go from (approx) 8 AM to (approx) 6 PM, having eaten only a "massive great slab" of multigrain toast for breakfast? Without eating (or even feeling hungry for) anything else in between? I'm impressed.

I feel permanently hungry, even though I try to only give in to those hunger pangs for normal breakfast (cereal) and lunch (soup and toast). I rarely feel "full" even after a large meal: I could always eat more. My wife compares me with a beagle that her family used to own ;-)

[Swer]

Cant find those. Got a direct link to those ? Maybe you meant the book.

I didn?t dismiss it out of hand, I pointed out some real problems with the claim, particularly why the type 2 diabetes epidemic is quite a recent phenomenon when we have always eaten lots of carbs, most obviously with bread, potatoes, porridge, cake, biscuits etc.

I couldn?t care less about what the NHS does or doesn?t do.

We'll see...

Because of the relatively recent type 2 diabetic epidemic.

Yes, it certainly is that.

That?s less clear.

I don?t get hungry even tho I start the day with just a massive slab of carbs.