*Anyone* could've eaten those two jelly donuts - why are you so quick to
blame me?

--

-Jeff B. (whose glucometer is giving him dirty looks)
zoomie at fastmail fm

"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
> *Anyone* could've eaten those two jelly donuts - why are you so quick to
> blame me?
>
> --
>
> -Jeff B. (whose glucometer is giving him dirty looks)
> zoomie at fastmail fm

Reminds me about this guy at work who tells me that his 93-year old mother
was just diagnosed with diabetes and they want her to change her diet.
Would you change your diet at 93? LOL

Elisa

"Elisa" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Yeff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> *Anyone* could've eaten those two jelly donuts - why are you so quick to
>> blame me?
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Jeff B. (whose glucometer is giving him dirty looks)
>> zoomie at fastmail fm
>
> Reminds me about this guy at work who tells me that his 93-year old mother
> was just diagnosed with diabetes and they want her to change her diet.
> Would you change your diet at 93? LOL
>
> Elisa
>

Detour:
An elderly couple goes to their attorney and says they want a divorce. The
lawyer says "Are you nuts? You're both what....96? Why did you wait so long,
if you weren't happy?" The wife says "We wanted to wait till the children
were dead!".

"Elisa" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Yeff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> *Anyone* could've eaten those two jelly donuts - why are you so quick to
>> blame me?
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Jeff B. (whose glucometer is giving him dirty looks)
>> zoomie at fastmail fm
>
> Reminds me about this guy at work who tells me that his 93-year old mother
> was just diagnosed with diabetes and they want her to change her diet.
> Would you change your diet at 93? LOL
>
> Elisa
Yes, indeed, and I would encourage all elderly to do as much as possible for
their health and we should encourage them. Extremely, or not so extremely,
depending on your view-point, who wants to have a relative's foot/leg
removed if a change in diet might prevent it.
Dee Dee

Dee Randall wrote:
> "Elisa" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Yeff" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> *Anyone* could've eaten those two jelly donuts - why are you so quick to
>>> blame me?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> -Jeff B. (whose glucometer is giving him dirty looks)
>>> zoomie at fastmail fm
>> Reminds me about this guy at work who tells me that his 93-year old mother
>> was just diagnosed with diabetes and they want her to change her diet.
>> Would you change your diet at 93? LOL
>>
>> Elisa
> Yes, indeed, and I would encourage all elderly to do as much as possible for
> their health and we should encourage them. Extremely, or not so extremely,
> depending on your view-point, who wants to have a relative's foot/leg
> removed if a change in diet might prevent it.

AT 93???? Oh my word! I've worked with the elderly population for more
than twenty years and speak from experience here. There is absolutely NO
benefit in making that kind of change at such an advanced age. None at
all! The damage that can be done has been done, either by illness or
just plain time. Limbs, eyes and internal organs will not be saved. Life
expectancy will not be increased. Most important, the quality of life
will not be improved.

Adapting diet and lifestyle to the constraints of a newly diagnosed
long-term illness when one is in their 30s or 40s, and in the 50s to a
point, would be far more meaningful and successful. There are even
advantages to making these changes in the 60s as well, but they are much
more limited by that time. After that, it's mostly lip service. Damage
MIGHT be slowed, but it will not be stopped, and the body's declining
function will interfere with the actions of dietary changes and newly
introduced medications, further complicating treatment.

The 93-year-old woman's diabetes is a result of her body's natural
decline. The doctor is advising her reflexively, and is misguided. She
is not ill. She is old.

There comes a point where being allowed to enjoy the indulgences of ones
age is more meaningful than compliance with what well-meaning physicians
and family members believe is for the best. I've seen innumerable
elderly patients succumb to the "cure" and its accompanying decline in
quality of life. Why should anyone so near the end of life be deprived
of its small pleasures? Let her eat whatever she wants.

"Pennyaline" > wrote in message
...
> Dee Randall wrote:
>> "Elisa" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Yeff" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> *Anyone* could've eaten those two jelly donuts - why are you so quick
>>>> to
>>>> blame me?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> -Jeff B. (whose glucometer is giving him dirty looks)
>>>> zoomie at fastmail fm
>>> Reminds me about this guy at work who tells me that his 93-year old
>>> mother was just diagnosed with diabetes and they want her to change her
>>> diet. Would you change your diet at 93? LOL
>>>
>>> Elisa
>> Yes, indeed, and I would encourage all elderly to do as much as possible
>> for their health and we should encourage them. Extremely, or not so
>> extremely, depending on your view-point, who wants to have a relative's
>> foot/leg removed if a change in diet might prevent it.
>
> AT 93???? Oh my word! I've worked with the elderly population for more
> than twenty years and speak from experience here. There is absolutely NO
> benefit in making that kind of change at such an advanced age. None at
> all! The damage that can be done has been done, either by illness or just
> plain time. Limbs, eyes and internal organs will not be saved. Life
> expectancy will not be increased. Most important, the quality of life will
> not be improved.
>
> Adapting diet and lifestyle to the constraints of a newly diagnosed
> long-term illness when one is in their 30s or 40s, and in the 50s to a
> point, would be far more meaningful and successful. There are even
> advantages to making these changes in the 60s as well, but they are much
> more limited by that time. After that, it's mostly lip service. Damage
> MIGHT be slowed, but it will not be stopped, and the body's declining
> function will interfere with the actions of dietary changes and newly
> introduced medications, further complicating treatment.
>
> The 93-year-old woman's diabetes is a result of her body's natural
> decline. The doctor is advising her reflexively, and is misguided. She is
> not ill. She is old.
>
> There comes a point where being allowed to enjoy the indulgences of ones
> age is more meaningful than compliance with what well-meaning physicians
> and family members believe is for the best. I've seen innumerable elderly
> patients succumb to the "cure" and its accompanying decline in quality of
> life. Why should anyone so near the end of life be deprived of its small
> pleasures? Let her eat whatever she wants.

And take up smoking, excessive drinking, and picking up guys at the pharmacy
counter. But, that's just me!

Elisa

Pennyaline wrote:
> Dee Randall wrote:
> > "Elisa" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Yeff" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> *Anyone* could've eaten those two jelly donuts - why are you so quick to
> >>> blame me?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> -Jeff B. (whose glucometer is giving him dirty looks)
> >>> zoomie at fastmail fm
> >> Reminds me about this guy at work who tells me that his 93-year old mother
> >> was just diagnosed with diabetes and they want her to change her diet.
> >> Would you change your diet at 93? LOL
> >>
> >> Elisa
> > Yes, indeed, and I would encourage all elderly to do as much as possible for
> > their health and we should encourage them. Extremely, or not so extremely,
> > depending on your view-point, who wants to have a relative's foot/leg
> > removed if a change in diet might prevent it.
>
> AT 93???? Oh my word! I've worked with the elderly population for more
> than twenty years and speak from experience here. There is absolutely NO
> benefit in making that kind of change at such an advanced age. None at
> all! The damage that can be done has been done, either by illness or
> just plain time. Limbs, eyes and internal organs will not be saved. Life
> expectancy will not be increased. Most important, the quality of life
> will not be improved.
>
> Adapting diet and lifestyle to the constraints of a newly diagnosed
> long-term illness when one is in their 30s or 40s, and in the 50s to a
> point, would be far more meaningful and successful. There are even
> advantages to making these changes in the 60s as well, but they are much
> more limited by that time. After that, it's mostly lip service. Damage
> MIGHT be slowed, but it will not be stopped, and the body's declining
> function will interfere with the actions of dietary changes and newly
> introduced medications, further complicating treatment.
>
> The 93-year-old woman's diabetes is a result of her body's natural
> decline. The doctor is advising her reflexively, and is misguided. She
> is not ill. She is old.
>
> There comes a point where being allowed to enjoy the indulgences of ones
> age is more meaningful than compliance with what well-meaning physicians
> and family members believe is for the best. I've seen innumerable
> elderly patients succumb to the "cure" and its accompanying decline in
> quality of life. Why should anyone so near the end of life be deprived
> of its small pleasures? Let her eat whatever she wants.

No one said the new diet would consist entirely of chalk and tofu.

If someone reached their 90's in relatively good health odds are
heavily in their favor that they will live to reach 100... only a no IQ
pinhead would refuse a relatively minor diet alteration... so what if I
have to give up *sugar*, so long as *sugar* ain't my favorite big
bazoomed bitch with neoprene lips.

Sheldon

"Elisa" > wrote in message
...
>

> Reminds me about this guy at work who tells me that his 93-year old mother
> was just diagnosed with diabetes and they want her to change her diet.
> Would you change your diet at 93? LOL
>
> Elisa
>

Well, if she's feeling really lousy because of elevated blood glucose
levels, then watching her carbohydrate intake would help her feel much
better. At 93, she deserves to feel as good as she can for as long as she
can. I felt pretty sick for three months before my Type 2 diabetes was
diagnosed; that was an experience I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

Diabetics can eat pretty much what non-diabetics eat; it's a matter of
portion control and restricting carb intake as well as taking medication, if
it's prescribed. Sugar is no longer off-limits to a diabetic as long as
those carbohydrates are factored into one's meal plan. So there wouldn't
be much deprivation involved at all for this woman to take control of her
diabetes.

Karen

On Wed, 17 May 2006 22:15:45 GMT, "Karen" >
wrote:

>
>Diabetics can eat pretty much what non-diabetics eat; it's a matter of
>portion control and restricting carb intake as well as taking medication, if
>it's prescribed.

Some diabetics (my partner included) do really well without a low-carb
regimen. In fact, my partner's numbers have gotten so close to
non-diabetic levels that his doctor keeps reducing his meds until he's
taking almost none.

serene
--
Kissing Hank's Ass is 10 years old! http://jhuger.com/kisshank
My personal blog: http://serenejournal.livejournal.com
My new cooking blog: http://serenecooking.livejournal.com

--


http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pi...zZqobjFZuHy3Su


"Elisa" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pennyaline" > wrote in message
> .............................. Let her eat whatever she wants.
>

> And take up smoking, excessive drinking, and picking up guys at the
> pharmacy counter. But, that's just me!
>
> Elisa
>

your reading my mind!
ROTFLMAO!

"readandpostrosie" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> --
>
>
> http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?pi...zZqobjFZuHy3Su
>
>
> "Elisa" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Pennyaline" > wrote in message
>> .............................. Let her eat whatever she wants.
>>
>
>> And take up smoking, excessive drinking, and picking up guys at the
>> pharmacy counter. But, that's just me!
>>
>> Elisa
>>
>
> your reading my mind!
> ROTFLMAO!

just stay away from my pharmacy counter rosie ;-)

Elisa
>
>

Sheldon wrote:
> Pennyaline wrote:
>> Dee Randall wrote:
>>> "Elisa" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Yeff" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> *Anyone* could've eaten those two jelly donuts - why are you so quick to
>>>>> blame me?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> -Jeff B. (whose glucometer is giving him dirty looks)
>>>>> zoomie at fastmail fm
>>>> Reminds me about this guy at work who tells me that his 93-year old mother
>>>> was just diagnosed with diabetes and they want her to change her diet.
>>>> Would you change your diet at 93? LOL
>>>>
>>>> Elisa
>>> Yes, indeed, and I would encourage all elderly to do as much as possible for
>>> their health and we should encourage them. Extremely, or not so extremely,
>>> depending on your view-point, who wants to have a relative's foot/leg
>>> removed if a change in diet might prevent it.
>> AT 93???? Oh my word! I've worked with the elderly population for more
>> than twenty years and speak from experience here. There is absolutely NO
>> benefit in making that kind of change at such an advanced age. None at
>> all! The damage that can be done has been done, either by illness or
>> just plain time. Limbs, eyes and internal organs will not be saved. Life
>> expectancy will not be increased. Most important, the quality of life
>> will not be improved.
>>
>> Adapting diet and lifestyle to the constraints of a newly diagnosed
>> long-term illness when one is in their 30s or 40s, and in the 50s to a
>> point, would be far more meaningful and successful. There are even
>> advantages to making these changes in the 60s as well, but they are much
>> more limited by that time. After that, it's mostly lip service. Damage
>> MIGHT be slowed, but it will not be stopped, and the body's declining
>> function will interfere with the actions of dietary changes and newly
>> introduced medications, further complicating treatment.
>>
>> The 93-year-old woman's diabetes is a result of her body's natural
>> decline. The doctor is advising her reflexively, and is misguided. She
>> is not ill. She is old.
>>
>> There comes a point where being allowed to enjoy the indulgences of ones
>> age is more meaningful than compliance with what well-meaning physicians
>> and family members believe is for the best. I've seen innumerable
>> elderly patients succumb to the "cure" and its accompanying decline in
>> quality of life. Why should anyone so near the end of life be deprived
>> of its small pleasures? Let her eat whatever she wants.
>
> No one said the new diet would consist entirely of chalk and tofu.
>
> If someone reached their 90's in relatively good health odds are
> heavily in their favor that they will live to reach 100... only a no IQ
> pinhead would refuse a relatively minor diet alteration... so what if I
> have to give up *sugar*, so long as *sugar* ain't my favorite big
> bazoomed bitch with neoprene lips.

I am loathe to describe my patients as "no IQ pinheads." They want what
they want, and at this point they can have it. Besides, the sweet taste
sensation is the best preserved in the elderly. That means for most of
them, sugar *is* the favorite big bazoomed bitch.

<with or without lips>

"Serene" > wrote in message
...
>
> Some diabetics (my partner included) do really well without a low-carb
> regimen. In fact, my partner's numbers have gotten so close to
> non-diabetic levels that his doctor keeps reducing his meds until he's
> taking almost none.
>
> serene
> --
> Kissing Hank's Ass is 10 years old! http://jhuger.com/kisshank
> My personal blog: http://serenejournal.livejournal.com
> My new cooking blog: http://serenecooking.livejournal.com

That's really great that your partner is doing so well! He must have worked
really hard to get those numbers down, and he deserves a *lot* of credit for
that. I love diabetic success stories. :-)

Restricting carbs doesn't necessarily mean low-carb. I do fine on 100-120g
a day which is a moderate-carb diet. My diabetes is very well controlled,
and I certainly don't feel deprived. About the only thing I've really
declared off-limits to myself is orange juice. I could use it to treat a
hypoglycemic episode, but I get those so rarely the OJ would probably go bad
before I had a chance to drink it.

As you know, diabetes is a complex disease with a lot of
your-mileage-may-vary stuff thrown in just to keep it challenging. :-)

Karen

Pennyaline wrote:

> Dee Randall wrote:
>
>> "Elisa" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> "Yeff" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> *Anyone* could've eaten those two jelly donuts - why are you so
>>>> quick to
>>>> blame me?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> -Jeff B. (whose glucometer is giving him dirty looks)
>>>> zoomie at fastmail fm
>>>
>>> Reminds me about this guy at work who tells me that his 93-year old
>>> mother was just diagnosed with diabetes and they want her to change
>>> her diet. Would you change your diet at 93? LOL
>>>
>>> Elisa
>>
>> Yes, indeed, and I would encourage all elderly to do as much as
>> possible for their health and we should encourage them. Extremely,
>> or not so extremely, depending on your view-point, who wants to have
>> a relative's foot/leg removed if a change in diet might prevent it.
>
>
> AT 93???? Oh my word! I've worked with the elderly population for more
> than twenty years and speak from experience here. There is absolutely
> NO benefit in making that kind of change at such an advanced age. None
> at all! The damage that can be done has been done, either by illness
> or just plain time. Limbs, eyes and internal organs will not be saved.
> Life expectancy will not be increased. Most important, the quality of
> life will not be improved.
>
> Adapting diet and lifestyle to the constraints of a newly diagnosed
> long-term illness when one is in their 30s or 40s, and in the 50s to a
> point, would be far more meaningful and successful. There are even
> advantages to making these changes in the 60s as well, but they are
> much more limited by that time. After that, it's mostly lip service.
> Damage MIGHT be slowed, but it will not be stopped, and the body's
> declining function will interfere with the actions of dietary changes
> and newly introduced medications, further complicating treatment.
>
> The 93-year-old woman's diabetes is a result of her body's natural
> decline. The doctor is advising her reflexively, and is misguided. She
> is not ill. She is old.
>
> There comes a point where being allowed to enjoy the indulgences of
> ones age is more meaningful than compliance with what well-meaning
> physicians and family members believe is for the best. I've seen
> innumerable elderly patients succumb to the "cure" and its
> accompanying decline in quality of life. Why should anyone so near the
> end of life be deprived of its small pleasures? Let her eat whatever
> she wants.

I am inclined to agree, but not totally.

There certainly is no point in making an elderly person's life a misery
by radically changing their diet. In that respect I wouldn't bother
about cholesterol, for example. If you've got clogged arteries, fine,
you'll die of a heart attack. Diabetes is a bit different. Diabetes
kills you slowly and unpleasantly, so I think that you've got to make
some attempt at dietary modification.

The recommended diet for diabetics isn't all that different from a good
general diet. You can replace regular jam with sugarless fruit spreads -
there are some excellent products which we have ourselves because we
like them, and there are other painless ways to reduce sugar and fat
consumption. Eating little and often is no hardship either.

My mother is 90 and has had diabetes for some years. She is past
watching her diet (which she did when she was first diagnosed) and my
father actively opposes any attempt at dietary control, partly because
he insists that she doesn't have "proper" diabetes. I have to admit that
that these days my concern is more that both of them are in danger of
malnutrition. Since Mum gave up cooking their diet has actually changed,
for the worse. Left to themselves they would subsist on meat pies and
jam sandwiches and no veggies whatsoever. If I'm going to be feeding
them I may as well, within the limits of what they enjoy eating, try to
bear the diabetes in mind.

Christine

Old Mother Ashby wrote:
> Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> Dee Randall wrote:
>>
>>> "Elisa" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> "Yeff" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> *Anyone* could've eaten those two jelly donuts - why are you so
>>>>> quick to
>>>>> blame me?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> -Jeff B. (whose glucometer is giving him dirty looks)
>>>>> zoomie at fastmail fm
>>>>
>>>> Reminds me about this guy at work who tells me that his 93-year old
>>>> mother was just diagnosed with diabetes and they want her to change
>>>> her diet. Would you change your diet at 93? LOL
>>>>
>>>> Elisa
>>>
>>> Yes, indeed, and I would encourage all elderly to do as much as
>>> possible for their health and we should encourage them. Extremely,
>>> or not so extremely, depending on your view-point, who wants to have
>>> a relative's foot/leg removed if a change in diet might prevent it.
>>
>>
>> AT 93???? Oh my word! I've worked with the elderly population for more
>> than twenty years and speak from experience here. There is absolutely
>> NO benefit in making that kind of change at such an advanced age. None
>> at all! The damage that can be done has been done, either by illness
>> or just plain time. Limbs, eyes and internal organs will not be saved.
>> Life expectancy will not be increased. Most important, the quality of
>> life will not be improved.
>>
>> Adapting diet and lifestyle to the constraints of a newly diagnosed
>> long-term illness when one is in their 30s or 40s, and in the 50s to a
>> point, would be far more meaningful and successful. There are even
>> advantages to making these changes in the 60s as well, but they are
>> much more limited by that time. After that, it's mostly lip service.
>> Damage MIGHT be slowed, but it will not be stopped, and the body's
>> declining function will interfere with the actions of dietary changes
>> and newly introduced medications, further complicating treatment.
>>
>> The 93-year-old woman's diabetes is a result of her body's natural
>> decline. The doctor is advising her reflexively, and is misguided. She
>> is not ill. She is old.
>>
>> There comes a point where being allowed to enjoy the indulgences of
>> ones age is more meaningful than compliance with what well-meaning
>> physicians and family members believe is for the best. I've seen
>> innumerable elderly patients succumb to the "cure" and its
>> accompanying decline in quality of life. Why should anyone so near the
>> end of life be deprived of its small pleasures? Let her eat whatever
>> she wants.
>
> I am inclined to agree, but not totally.
>
> There certainly is no point in making an elderly person's life a misery
> by radically changing their diet. In that respect I wouldn't bother
> about cholesterol, for example. If you've got clogged arteries, fine,
> you'll die of a heart attack. Diabetes is a bit different. Diabetes
> kills you slowly and unpleasantly, so I think that you've got to make
> some attempt at dietary modification.

By the time we reach our 90s, a newly-diagnosed diabetes isn't going to
kill us slowly and unpleasantly. There wont be enough time for it to do
that.


> The recommended diet for diabetics isn't all that different from a good
> general diet. You can replace regular jam with sugarless fruit spreads -
> there are some excellent products which we have ourselves because we
> like them, and there are other painless ways to reduce sugar and fat
> consumption. Eating little and often is no hardship either.

I'm aware of what diabetic diets are and how they are done. I'm also
aware of what the elderly eat and what their snacks are comprised of. I
know what they shop for, and what they stash in their cupboards and
bureau drawers. I know what they eat first at meals and what they leave
on their plates. And I also know that their intake may be abysmal enough
that they need to be encouraged to eat whatever they want without
restriction.


> My mother is 90 and has had diabetes for some years.

Okay. But the woman in the original post had NOT had it for some years.


> She is past
> watching her diet (which she did when she was first diagnosed) and my
> father actively opposes any attempt at dietary control, partly because
> he insists that she doesn't have "proper" diabetes. I have to admit that
> that these days my concern is more that both of them are in danger of
> malnutrition. Since Mum gave up cooking their diet has actually changed,
> for the worse. Left to themselves they would subsist on meat pies and
> jam sandwiches and no veggies whatsoever. If I'm going to be feeding
> them I may as well, within the limits of what they enjoy eating, try to
> bear the diabetes in mind.

Fine, but remember when you cited "danger of malnutrition." It's very
common in the elderly, for a multitude of reasons. If you are counting
on them eating better because you are feeding them, you may be in for an
unpleasant surprise.

In article >,
Yeff > wrote:

> *Anyone* could've eaten those two jelly donuts - why are you so quick to
> blame me?

Speaking as a diabetic, "anyone" does not have diabetes. If you want an
occasional sugary treat, get in some good rigorous exercise after you
eat that treat. Exercise is a great way to reduce extra blood glucose.
Anyone who has diabetes ought to get regular exercise if at all
possible. Exercise creates a condition where excess carbohydrates are
burned off rather then stored where your body cannot process them
adequately.

Pennyaline wrote:

> Old Mother Ashby wrote:
>
>> Pennyaline wrote:
>>
>>> Dee Randall wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Elisa" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> "Yeff" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> *Anyone* could've eaten those two jelly donuts - why are you so
>>>>>> quick to
>>>>>> blame me?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Jeff B. (whose glucometer is giving him dirty looks)
>>>>>> zoomie at fastmail fm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Reminds me about this guy at work who tells me that his 93-year
>>>>> old mother was just diagnosed with diabetes and they want her to
>>>>> change her diet. Would you change your diet at 93? LOL
>>>>>
>>>>> Elisa
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, indeed, and I would encourage all elderly to do as much as
>>>> possible for their health and we should encourage them. Extremely,
>>>> or not so extremely, depending on your view-point, who wants to
>>>> have a relative's foot/leg removed if a change in diet might
>>>> prevent it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> AT 93???? Oh my word! I've worked with the elderly population for
>>> more than twenty years and speak from experience here. There is
>>> absolutely NO benefit in making that kind of change at such an
>>> advanced age. None at all! The damage that can be done has been
>>> done, either by illness or just plain time. Limbs, eyes and internal
>>> organs will not be saved. Life expectancy will not be increased.
>>> Most important, the quality of life will not be improved.
>>>
>>> Adapting diet and lifestyle to the constraints of a newly diagnosed
>>> long-term illness when one is in their 30s or 40s, and in the 50s to
>>> a point, would be far more meaningful and successful. There are even
>>> advantages to making these changes in the 60s as well, but they are
>>> much more limited by that time. After that, it's mostly lip service.
>>> Damage MIGHT be slowed, but it will not be stopped, and the body's
>>> declining function will interfere with the actions of dietary
>>> changes and newly introduced medications, further complicating
>>> treatment.
>>>
>>> The 93-year-old woman's diabetes is a result of her body's natural
>>> decline. The doctor is advising her reflexively, and is misguided.
>>> She is not ill. She is old.
>>>
>>> There comes a point where being allowed to enjoy the indulgences of
>>> ones age is more meaningful than compliance with what well-meaning
>>> physicians and family members believe is for the best. I've seen
>>> innumerable elderly patients succumb to the "cure" and its
>>> accompanying decline in quality of life. Why should anyone so near
>>> the end of life be deprived of its small pleasures? Let her eat
>>> whatever she wants.
>>
>>
>> I am inclined to agree, but not totally.
>>
>> There certainly is no point in making an elderly person's life a
>> misery by radically changing their diet. In that respect I wouldn't
>> bother about cholesterol, for example. If you've got clogged
>> arteries, fine, you'll die of a heart attack. Diabetes is a bit
>> different. Diabetes kills you slowly and unpleasantly, so I think
>> that you've got to make some attempt at dietary modification.
>
>
> By the time we reach our 90s, a newly-diagnosed diabetes isn't going
> to kill us slowly and unpleasantly. There wont be enough time for it
> to do that.

I can't agree with that. A frend of my parents had both legs amputated
when he was in his 90s. He proceeded to terrorise the pedestrians of
Bairnsdale in his electric wheelchair for a year or so before he had his
final stroke, and I suppose it's arguable whether he found being a
double amputee unpleasant within the meaning of the act. I can't help
feeling that he would have preferred to die with his legs on.

>> She is past watching her diet (which she did when she was first
>> diagnosed) and my father actively opposes any attempt at dietary
>> control, partly because he insists that she doesn't have "proper"
>> diabetes. I have to admit that that these days my concern is more
>> that both of them are in danger of malnutrition. Since Mum gave up
>> cooking their diet has actually changed, for the worse. Left to
>> themselves they would subsist on meat pies and jam sandwiches and no
>> veggies whatsoever. If I'm going to be feeding them I may as well,
>> within the limits of what they enjoy eating, try to bear the diabetes
>> in mind.
>
>
> Fine, but remember when you cited "danger of malnutrition." It's very
> common in the elderly, for a multitude of reasons. If you are counting
> on them eating better because you are feeding them, you may be in for
> an unpleasant surprise.

Oh, I don't at all count on them eating better because SIL and I supply
them with food. There's no guarantee that they'll eat it. Dad tells me
that the last time they had some of my nice nourishing scotch broth Mum
picked all the bits of carrot out and gave them to the dog! And of
course they can have a freezer full of small serves of tasty food but
still not bother to consume it when toast and jam is so much easier
(you've got to defrost the other stuff).

Christine

Old Mother Ashby wrote:
> Pennyaline wrote:

>> By the time we reach our 90s, a newly-diagnosed diabetes isn't going
>> to kill us slowly and unpleasantly. There wont be enough time for it
>> to do that.
>
> I can't agree with that. A frend of my parents had both legs amputated
> when he was in his 90s. He proceeded to terrorise the pedestrians of
> Bairnsdale in his electric wheelchair for a year or so before he had his
> final stroke, and I suppose it's arguable whether he found being a
> double amputee unpleasant within the meaning of the act. I can't help
> feeling that he would have preferred to die with his legs on.

Your friend's legs weren't amputated from "new" onset diabetes, but
rather probably many previous years of poor glucose control.

Goomba38 wrote:
> Old Mother Ashby wrote:
>> Pennyaline wrote:
>
>>> By the time we reach our 90s, a newly-diagnosed diabetes isn't going
>>> to kill us slowly and unpleasantly. There wont be enough time for it
>>> to do that.
>>
>> I can't agree with that. A frend of my parents had both legs
>> amputated when he was in his 90s. He proceeded to terrorise the
>> pedestrians of Bairnsdale in his electric wheelchair for a year or so
>> before he had his final stroke, and I suppose it's arguable whether
>> he found being a double amputee unpleasant within the meaning of the
>> act. I can't help feeling that he would have preferred to die with
>> his legs on.
>
> Your friend's legs weren't amputated from "new" onset diabetes, but
> rather probably many previous years of poor glucose control.
Well I know that. He'd had diabetes through his 80s, just like my
mother. The point I was trying to make was that, just because somebody
has passed their three score years and ten, you don't take the attitude
that they'll be dead in a couple of years anyway so let's not bother
about their diabetes. Even if as person is 90 when the diabetes is
diagnosed, if they are otherwise in good health I don't see the harm in
modest dietary modifications when they might live another 10 years. I do
agree that if they refuse to countenance any change then there's no
point arguing and making everybody unhappy.

Christine

Pennyaline wrote:

> Fine, but remember when you cited "danger of malnutrition." It's very
> common in the elderly, for a multitude of reasons. If you are counting
> on them eating better because you are feeding them, you may be in for an
> unpleasant surprise.

Someone hit a nerve, didn't they? I've watched enough elderly
relatives, friends and now my Mom eat, and you're right, it isn't
always easy to get them to eat healthy or even enough calories to keep
a worm alive.

Mom takes a couple of hours to eat half what she should, but we do
manage to get plenty of fruits and veggies into her, and the rest of
the calories come from ice cream or cookies. She's 93 as well (this
Friday), and just had stents put in to increase bloodflow to her feet
so she can keep moving under her own steam.

Fortunately she likes a pretty healthy set of foods, but getting enough
into her to keep her going is a challenge.

maxine in ri

"maxine in ri" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> Fine, but remember when you cited "danger of malnutrition." It's very
>> common in the elderly, for a multitude of reasons. If you are counting
>> on them eating better because you are feeding them, you may be in for an
>> unpleasant surprise.
>
> Someone hit a nerve, didn't they? I've watched enough elderly
> relatives, friends and now my Mom eat, and you're right, it isn't
> always easy to get them to eat healthy or even enough calories to keep
> a worm alive.
>
> Mom takes a couple of hours to eat half what she should, but we do
> manage to get plenty of fruits and veggies into her, and the rest of
> the calories come from ice cream or cookies. She's 93 as well (this
> Friday), and just had stents put in to increase bloodflow to her feet
> so she can keep moving under her own steam.
>
> Fortunately she likes a pretty healthy set of foods, but getting enough
> into her to keep her going is a challenge.
>
> maxine in ri

Maxine, my m-i-l died in 2003 at age 91. She never ate a lot of food all
her life and was always thin. She didn't care a lot about it; but her last
few years, she cared less. When we went out to eat she would pick at her
food; f-i-l always ordered full-dinners for her in spite of this, I have to
hand it to him for that. What was so funny, when we would leave one
particular restaurant where we always had full dinners, and after trying to
convince her to eat, she would almost skip with glee to the counter where we
paid and pick up a cookie laying in a bowl on the counter. They were free
to all leaving the place, and even with her alzheimer's or dementia torn
mind, she never forgot that there was a cookie there at the door.
Dee Dee