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 My local MP etc must be quite 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 won't use that "occupy"
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 My local MP etc must be quite
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 won't use that "occupy" word - shudder

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 My local MP etc must be quite
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 won't use that "occupy" word - shudder

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!