Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
Diabetic (alt.food.diabetic) This group is for the discussion of controlled-portion eating plans for the dietary management of diabetes. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
![]()
Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: " restricting total
carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not recommended. In addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary sugar (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories. That means people with diabetes can have a limited amount of sweets, chocolates and desserts as part of a healthy meal plan." Read it he http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001 I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of ethics I expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of course, it is really "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their "brands.") |
|
|||
![]() "Janet" wrote in message ... Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: " restricting total carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not recommended. In addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary sugar (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories. That means people with diabetes can have a limited amount of sweets, chocolates and desserts as part of a healthy meal plan." Read it he http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001 I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of ethics I expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of course, it is really "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their "brands.") That's nothing new! |
|
|||
![]()
Julie Bove wrote:
: "Janet" wrote in message : ... : Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: " restricting : total carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not recommended. : In addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary sugar : (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories. That means : people with diabetes can have a limited amount of sweets, chocolates and : desserts as part of a healthy meal plan." : : Read it he : http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001 : : I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of ethics I : expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of course, it is : really "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their : "brands.") : That's nothing new! For many of us it is, at least the Remedy Health Services part. Wendy |
|
|||
![]() "W. Baker" wrote in message ... Julie Bove wrote: : "Janet" wrote in message : ... : Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: " restricting : total carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not recommended. : In addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary sugar : (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories. That means : people with diabetes can have a limited amount of sweets, chocolates and : desserts as part of a healthy meal plan." : : Read it he : http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001 : : I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of ethics I : expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of course, it is : really "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their : "brands.") : That's nothing new! For many of us it is, at least the Remedy Health Services part. No, no. I mean the advice! |
|
|||
![]()
Should have emailed them with your thoughts. If more people provide
feedback as to their experiences with more carbs re control then maybe, just maybe, someone might notice. As you can probably tell I am not one to just accept things ![]() But seriously, a squeaky door gets oiled. I like to think that my opinions of government policy eventually get heard. Perhaps the same could happen here. Unsubbing to me is like killfiling. You can't know what else comes out of there. Make a stand! ![]() word - shudder ![]() "Janet" wrote in message ... Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: " restricting total carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not recommended. In addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary sugar (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories. That means people with diabetes can have a limited amount of sweets, chocolates and desserts as part of a healthy meal plan." Read it he http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001 I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of ethics I expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of course, it is really "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their "brands.") |
|
|||
![]()
Ozgirl wrote:
Should have emailed them with your thoughts. If more people provide feedback as to their experiences with more carbs re control then maybe, just maybe, someone might notice. As you can probably tell I am not one to just accept things ![]() sick of me, lol. But seriously, a squeaky door gets oiled. I like to think that my opinions of government policy eventually get heard. Perhaps the same could happen here. Unsubbing to me is like killfiling. You can't know what else comes out of there. Make a stand! ![]() ![]() I actually did call their customer service line and register a vociferous complaint. They carefully do NOT provide a comment forum or email address where you can register a comment. I am angry enough about it to track down someone via the JHU website, and will probably do so in the next few days. (I actually have some connection to JHU, albeit a different branch of the university.) |
|
|||
![]()
On 10/27/2011 5:39 PM, Janet wrote:
Ozgirl wrote: Should have emailed them with your thoughts. If more people provide feedback as to their experiences with more carbs re control then maybe, just maybe, someone might notice. As you can probably tell I am not one to just accept things ![]() sick of me, lol. But seriously, a squeaky door gets oiled. I like to think that my opinions of government policy eventually get heard. Perhaps the same could happen here. Unsubbing to me is like killfiling. You can't know what else comes out of there. Make a stand! ![]() ![]() I actually did call their customer service line and register a vociferous complaint. They carefully do NOT provide a comment forum or email address where you can register a comment. I am angry enough about it to track down someone via the JHU website, and will probably do so in the next few days. (I actually have some connection to JHU, albeit a different branch of the university.) but they know names.......... networking is great ![]() k |
|
|||
![]()
Julie Bove wrote:
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? They didn't say to eat more carbs. There is no need to be rude, Julie. My reading comprehension is just fine. Perhaps if you think a bit more about the implications of what was said you will get my point. As far as quoting the ADA website is concerned, it's like the bible: you can find something there to prove virtually anything you want. It is obviously designed for maximum deniability. For the real message, I suggest reading the page[s] where they talk about "tight control." How they define it, and the degree of danger they ascribe to it, and so forth. |
|
|||
![]() "Janet" wrote in message ... Julie Bove wrote: Do you have a reading comprehension problem? They didn't say to eat more carbs. There is no need to be rude, Julie. My reading comprehension is just fine. Perhaps if you think a bit more about the implications of what was said you will get my point. As far as quoting the ADA website is concerned, it's like the bible: you can find something there to prove virtually anything you want. It is obviously designed for maximum deniability. For the real message, I suggest reading the page[s] where they talk about "tight control." How they define it, and the degree of danger they ascribe to it, and so forth. It's not like the bible to me! To me the bible is merely a meaningless book. I'm an atheist! I don't need to reread anything. The OP said to eat *more* carbs. I'm sure it didn't say that at all. |
|
|||
![]()
Julie Bove wrote:
"Janet" wrote in message ... Julie Bove wrote: Do you have a reading comprehension problem? They didn't say to eat more carbs. There is no need to be rude, Julie. My reading comprehension is just fine. Perhaps if you think a bit more about the implications of what was said you will get my point. As far as quoting the ADA website is concerned, it's like the bible: you can find something there to prove virtually anything you want. It is obviously designed for maximum deniability. For the real message, I suggest reading the page[s] where they talk about "tight control." How they define it, and the degree of danger they ascribe to it, and so forth. It's not like the bible to me! To me the bible is merely a meaningless book. I'm an atheist! I don't need to reread anything. The OP said to eat *more* carbs. I'm sure it didn't say that at all. I don't "believe in" the bible in any religious way either, Julie. That is not the point. The point is that, like the pronouncements of the ADA on their website, it is frequently cited as an authority to support someone's opinion. And because of the way it is written, you can find justification for almost any course of action there if you wish. Ozgirl quoted from one part of it--I assume that's where she got that text, anyway--and I suggested that she go look at another part of it, which says something quite different. Since you insist on being literal minded to a degree that doesn't admit the existence of metaphor or simile, I suggest you go back and reread my posts. Then show me where I said "more." In fact, a simple glimpse at the thread title will tell you that I used the word "those." The article from Remedy, puporting to be from JHU, quotes various authorities in stating that it is dangerous to go below 130 gms of carb per day in the long term. I would venture to guess that would mean that the vast majority of T2 diabetics who are controlling their HBA1C below 6 using diet, exercise, and perhaps metformin, would indeed have to eat significantly more carbs to meet their recomendation. It certainly would mean that for me. But frankly, I think the ultimate goal of Remedy Health Systems and big pharma and all of the medical industrial establishment is to make big $$. And one of the best ways to do that is to push T2s on to expensive medications. They aren't going to make big $$ if T2s control their BGs without taking all of those expensive drugs that, according to studies, perform no better than the cheap generic: metformin. |
|
|||
![]() "Janet" wrote in message ... Julie Bove wrote: "Janet" wrote in message ... Julie Bove wrote: Do you have a reading comprehension problem? They didn't say to eat more carbs. There is no need to be rude, Julie. My reading comprehension is just fine. Perhaps if you think a bit more about the implications of what was said you will get my point. As far as quoting the ADA website is concerned, it's like the bible: you can find something there to prove virtually anything you want. It is obviously designed for maximum deniability. For the real message, I suggest reading the page[s] where they talk about "tight control." How they define it, and the degree of danger they ascribe to it, and so forth. It's not like the bible to me! To me the bible is merely a meaningless book. I'm an atheist! I don't need to reread anything. The OP said to eat *more* carbs. I'm sure it didn't say that at all. I don't "believe in" the bible in any religious way either, Julie. That is not the point. The point is that, like the pronouncements of the ADA on their website, it is frequently cited as an authority to support someone's opinion. And because of the way it is written, you can find justification for almost any course of action there if you wish. Ozgirl quoted from one part of it--I assume that's where she got that text, anyway--and I suggested that she go look at another part of it, which says something quite different. Since you insist on being literal minded to a degree that doesn't admit the existence of metaphor or simile, I suggest you go back and reread my posts. Then show me where I said "more." In fact, a simple glimpse at the thread title will tell you that I used the word "those." The article from Remedy, puporting to be from JHU, quotes various authorities in stating that it is dangerous to go below 130 gms of carb per day in the long term. I would venture to guess that would mean that the vast majority of T2 diabetics who are controlling their HBA1C below 6 using diet, exercise, and perhaps metformin, would indeed have to eat significantly more carbs to meet their recomendation. It certainly would mean that for me. But frankly, I think the ultimate goal of Remedy Health Systems and big pharma and all of the medical industrial establishment is to make big $$. And one of the best ways to do that is to push T2s on to expensive medications. They aren't going to make big $$ if T2s control their BGs without taking all of those expensive drugs that, according to studies, perform no better than the cheap generic: metformin. I didn't say you said it. I said the OP. Were you the OP? This has gone on for so long now I can't remember who said what. |
|
|||
![]()
On 10/29/2011 8:20 AM, Janet wrote:
Julie Bove wrote: wrote in message ... Julie Bove wrote: [snip] Julie Bove wrote: wrote in message ... Julie Bove wrote: [snip] I don't "believe in" the bible in any religious way either, Julie. That is not the point. The point is that, like the pronouncements of the ADA on their website, it is frequently cited as an authority to support someone's opinion. And because of the way it is written, you can find justification for almost any course of action there if you wish. Ozgirl quoted from one part of it--I assume that's where she got that text, anyway--and I suggested that she go look at another part of it, which says something quite different. The ADA website USED to say that about 130 g of carbs a day was required to supply the needs of the brain, back in the days when they assumed that because the low-fat, no-sugar diet worked somewhat for controlling diabetes, no funding for any research to check if a low-carb diet worked better was useful. Since then, research funded elsewhere has shown that most of the brain can switch to using fats for its energy, but not all of it, and the liver can convert proteins into glucose more than fast enough to supply the portions of the brain that can't switch over. The ADA is now SLOWLY moving toward accepting low-carb diets as an alternative, but hasn't reached the point of recommending it yet - except on their users forum, where more users recommend it than those that recommend the older diet. Robert Miles |
|
|||
![]()
Julie Bove wrote:
snip I didn't say you said it. I said the OP. Were you the OP? This has gone on for so long now I can't remember who said what. I was the OP. I didn't say it. And the entire thread had a total of 17 posts when I just checked. Doesn't seem so terribly long to me... |
|
|||
![]() "Janet" wrote in message ... Julie Bove wrote: snip I didn't say you said it. I said the OP. Were you the OP? This has gone on for so long now I can't remember who said what. I was the OP. I didn't say it. And the entire thread had a total of 17 posts when I just checked. Doesn't seem so terribly long to me... You said "Eat Those Carbs!" And I know somebody said they said to eat more carbs. |
|
|||
![]() "Julie Bove" wrote in message ... "Janet" wrote in message ... Julie Bove wrote: snip I didn't say you said it. I said the OP. Were you the OP? This has gone on for so long now I can't remember who said what. I was the OP. I didn't say it. And the entire thread had a total of 17 posts when I just checked. Doesn't seem so terribly long to me... You said "Eat Those Carbs!" And I know somebody said they said to eat more carbs. Here you go! Susan said this! "Yes, the ADA used to have a statement on their site, "eat more starches, they're good for you!"" I used two quote marks on some of it because I was quoting Susan and she was apparently quoting the ADA. Whether they actually said that or not I do not know. I kind of think not. To which I told her something to the extent of... Get over it! They no longer say that. So the ADA did not say to eat more carbs or starches. Nor did they say "Eat those carbs!" I believe they said you should not eat less than 130 grams of carb. To which I replied that this is not new news. People have been quoting this from various sources for many years. And some would even argue that eating 130 grams of carb is low carb. Certainly it is less carbs than the average American and probably the average person in many other countries would eat in a day. I know when my diet was mainly beans and rice or beans and pasta, with a lunch of say...peas, corn and potatoes, I was eating about that many carbs in a meal! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
net carbs? | General Cooking | |||
Too many carbs! | Diabetic | |||
Carbs | Diabetic | |||
net carbs? | Diabetic | |||
Good Carbs, Bad Carbs, And Cancer | Vegan |