Please check out our website www.lowcarbdiabetic.co.uk We created and maintain this site without any help from anyone else. In doing so, we do not receive direct or indirect funding from anyone. We do not accept money or favours to manipulate the evidence in any way. Please visit our Low Carb food and recipe blog www.lowcarbdietsandrecipes.blogspot.com
Friday, 7 December 2012
The crazy world of diabetes !
Imagine my joy a few weeks ago, when I heard a new diabetes forum was starting up. Not only starting up, but wanted me as board member of a planned charity. Normally these days I would have said thank you, but forums are not my thing. My time on various forums is well documented, some say I am the most banned man in the UK. But this time I thought the new forum would be very different. This new forum was being started by a group of staunch lowcarbers, arguably the most pro lowcarb and hardest fighting team in the history of the diabetes.co.uk forum. What could possibly go wrong ?
Well a lot did go wrong, as much of the grief regarding board members, and the direction of the forum was behind closed doors, I’ll leave it that way. But I wanted no part as board member and resigned. Somewhat disappointing for me, but hey this was about helping others wasn’t it ? So, as a forum member I started posting content I thought would be of interest to other members and other diabetics looking in. Well the members seemed to be happy with my posts, the thank you’s and Karma came pouring in and things were going well, not quite. Some board members felt my posts were ‘good stuff and brilliant’ but my style wasn’t up to the required standard. I was making statements, when asking questions was maybe less confrontational. OK I let it go, and noted ‘must try harder’ in my school report book.
Well I tried, but clearly I was a marked man. I had been very critical behind the scenes, and payback was coming my way. On Sunday a new member asked for some basic advice re diet and how to use a meter etc. The member was given a link to here I posted a link to here which I thought fitted in nicely with the welcome link. My post was immediately deleted. Via an email I was told something along the lines of, as a board member you should not be seen to be going against the general ethos of the other board members. I had resigned three days before. It was not my decision not to inform the members I had left the board. Indeed, I had to issue an ultimatum on Sunday, that if it was not announced by midnight, I would announce my leaving the board myself. The announcement was made, I could now post as a member. I hoped to generate some debate, in an open forum. I posted up posts that I believe kept within the forum rules. I was not abusive, I have stated on the forum how anyone controls their diabetes is cool with me, but many do not control their diabetes to safe levels. Many are under the illusion that certain BG numbers are safe, when they are anything but. Misinformation, post editing and deletion was not a thing I expected to see on the new forum.
What staggers me is a group of people who fought so hard against the lowcarb antis, and their ludicrous dietary dogma on the diabetes.co.uk forum, have put in place guidelines that would meet with the antis full approval. The Sid Bonkers portion control method, that was so argued against, and dismissed as useless for so many diabetics, is now being pushed as a good start point, but a higher amount of carbs has been suggested.
As an aside, the level of post deletion that was deemed to be unacceptable at diabetes.co.uk, is already a feature at ETYM. This post was deleted twice last night. I received an email stating “Eddie, I have removed your post temporarily. Re posting it is in no ones best interest. If cleared your post will be reinstalled“. Defren.
“Clearly my position is untenable here. So I will leave the forum.
May I take this opportunity to wish all the very best of luck and good health.
Kind regards Eddie”
As of the time of writing this post (20 hours later) it has not been re-instated. Why was a post wishing people good luck and good health deemed to be worthy of deleting ? Even in the Stalinist days of Cugila, I think my post would have stood as posted. Interesting days ahead.
As always, feel free to argue your case over here.
Eddie
Thursday, 6 December 2012
The eat to your meter forum !
Clearly my position is untenable here. So I will leave the forum.
May I take this opportunity to wish all the very best of luck and good health.
Kind regards Eddie
Cholesterol Myths that May Surprise You !
Life insurance companies know a surprising secret about cholesterol that most doctors never tell patients: When it comes to rating your risk for a fatal heart attack, the least important cholesterol number is your level of LDL (bad) cholesterol. In fact, life insurance actuaries don’t even look at LDL levels, because large studies show it’s the worst predictor of heart attack risk.
Instead, life insurance companies use a simple math formula to rate your heart attack risk: They divide your total cholesterol by the level of HDL (good) cholesterol.
“If the ratio is below three, and there’s no inflammation in your arteries, you’re practically bulletproof against heart attacks and strokes, even if your LDL is high,” reports Amy Doneen, MSN, ARNP, medical director of the Heart Attack & Stroke Prevention Center in Spokane, Washington.
Here’s a look at eight common cholesterol myths.
Myth: Cholesterol is inherently evil.
Fact: You couldn’t survive without cholesterol, since this waxy substance produced by the liver plays many essential roles in our body, from waterproofing cell membranes to helping produce vitamin D, bile acids that help you digest fat, and sex hormones, including testosterone, estrogen, and progesterone.
Cholesterol is ferried through your body by molecular “submarines” called lipoproteins, such as low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL).
Myth: Low cholesterol is always a sign of good health.
Fact: Although low levels of LDL cholesterol are usually healthy, a new studyreports that people who develop cancer typically have lower LDL in the years prior to diagnosis than those who don’t get cancer.
Researchers compared 201 cancer patients to 402 control patients without cancer, matched by such factors as age, gender, smoking, blood pressure, diabetes, and body mass index. None of the patients had taken statins.
Thirteen earlier randomized clinical trials of statin therapy also found a link between low LDL and cancer, causing medical debate about whether statins raise risk. The new study suggests that an unknown biological mechanism—rather than cholesterol-lowering medication—may be the culprit.
Myth: High LDL means you could be headed for a heart attack.
Fact: Nearly 75 percent of people hospitalized for a heart attack have LDL (bad) cholesterol levels that fall within current recommended targets, and close to half have “optimal” levels, according to a national study of about 136,000 people. The researchers also reported that levels of protective HDL (good) cholesterol have dropped in heart attack patients over the last several years, probably due to the rise in obesity, diabetes, and insulin resistance. Only 2 percent of the patients studied had ideal levels of both LDL and HDL.
Myth: All LDL particles are equally dangerous.
Fact: The size of the particles matters, says Doneen. “Think of beach balls and bullets. Some LDL particles are small and dense, making it easier for them to penetrate the arterial lining and form plaque, while others are big and fluffy, so they tend to bounce off the artery walls.”
People who mostly have small, dense LDL cholesterol are up to three times more likely to have heart attacks than those with big, fluffy particles.
Myth: Americans have the world’s highest cholesterol levels.
Fact: Contrary to the stereotype that most of us are just a few big Macs away from a heart attack, US men rank 83rd in the world in average total cholesterol and US women 81st, according to the World Health Organization. For both sexes, the average is 197 mg/dL, slightly below the borderline high range (200 to 239 mg/dL).
In Colombia, men average a whopping 244 mg/dL—a level that doubles heart-disease risk—while Israeli, Libyan, Norwegian, and Uruguayan women are in a four-way tie for the highest average with 232.
Myth: Triglycerides trigger heart disease.
Fact: “Triglycerides, a type of blood fat, don’t invade the artery wall and form plaque,” explains Doneen. “However, high triglycerides mark another huge problem: insulin resistance, a pre-diabetic condition that is the root cause of 70 percent of heart attacks.”
High triglycerides are also one of the warning signs of metabolic syndrome, a cluster of abnormalities that multiply risk for coronary artery disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes. To be diagnosed with metabolic syndrome, you must have three or more of these disorders: high blood pressure, high blood sugar, a large waist, high triglycerides, and low HDL.
Myth: Eggs clogs up arteries.
Fact: It’s true that eggs are high in dietary cholesterol, with upwards of 200 mg, mainly in the yolk. Research shows, however, that eating three or more eggs a day boosts blood concentrations of both good and bad cholesterol.
The LDL particles tend to be the light, fluffy ones that are least likely to enter the arterial wall, while the increased HDL helps keep the arteries clean, suggesting that most people’s bodies handle cholesterol from eggs in a way that’s unlikely to harm the heart. The researchers say that their findings add to growing evidence that eggs are not “a dietary evil.”
Myth: There are no visible symptoms of high cholesterol.
Fact: Some people with high cholesterol develop yellowish-red bumps called xanthomas that can occur on the eyelids, joints, hands, or other parts of the body. People with diabetes or an inherited condition called familial hypercholesterolemia are more likely to have xanthomas.
The best way to tell if your cholesterol is too high is to have it checked every three years, starting at age 20, or more often, if advised by provider.
Graham
Drugmaker ties to diabetes bloggers come under fire !
Big pharmaceutical company ties to diabetes bloggers and other social media has some advocacy groups calling for better disclosure, according to a recent post on NPR's Shots blog.
There's a vibrant diabetes community online through blogs, YouTube videos and community forums, the article notes, a big audience that pharmaceutical companies increasingly are trying to tap into by sponsoring blogs and product testimonials. Jeff Chester, of the Center for Digital Democracy, says pharma companies also are using social media to promote their devices and drugs in a deceptive way, and adds that disclosure statements are not enough.
"The [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] and [the Federal Trade Commission] need to create a whole new system for disclosing when a blogger or group gets paid by pharmaceutical companies," Chester says.
Blogger Kerri Sparling, whose site carries disclosures about her ties to drugmakers, meanwhile, says it's in pharmaceutical companies' best interests to take heed of patient experiences, whether on a blog or a YouTube video, so they can improve their products.
Drugmaker Sanofi US is heavily involved in social media, according to NPR, boasting a Twitter account and a Facebook page; the company also is exploring how best to take advantage of sites like Pinterest and Instagram. "Getting involved in social media is a critical component of serving the diabetes community," Sanofi head of diabetes Dennis Urbaniak tells NPR.
Jason Bronner, a researcher at the University of California San Diego Medical Center who is studying whether social media connections actually help diabetes patients manage their disease tells NPR that, so far, there's no proof that they do.
With Americans spending more than $100 billion a year on diabetes care, it's a vast opportunity for drugmakers. The growing disease makes it one of the biggest segments of focus among app developers, as well. Providers also are experimenting with an array of technology options to increase self-management, including texting, social media and web portals.
The monitoring functions of these methods have been shown to improve disease management. Still, it will be up to researchers such as Bronner to show that making social connections can do the same.
http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/drugmaker-ties-diabetes-bloggers-come-under-fire/2012-12-05
Graham
Sir Ranulph Fiennes a complete nutter !
At 68 years of age, an age when most men are shuffling around in carpet slippers and sipping from a mug of cocoa, before turning in for another early night, Sir Ranulph Fiennes is planning to schlep 2000 miles across the Antarctic in winter. With temperatures plunging as low as -92C, (average home freezer temp - 20c) that seems pretty cold to me, not to mention winds of up to a hundred miles an hour. There is no doubt about it Fiennes is a complete nutter. Remember, this is the man who four months after a heart attack and double heart bypass surgery ran seven marathons on seven continents in seven days. Back in May 2009 he became the oldest man ever to have reached the summit of Mount Everest. As I say a nutter, but a glorious nutter, over our history we have had some great nutters, Nelson, Churchill, Shackleton et al. We need more nutters but they are a dying breed. Where have all the great leaders gone ? Today we have the dynamic duo, the chinless wonders Dave and Nick. Can you see those two putting up two fingers to Hitler and the largest and most powerful Army in history.
“It is the latest feat of endurance by the explorer who is hoping to raise $10 million (£6.2 million) for Seeing is Believing, a blindness charity. Sir Ranulph will lead on foot with a skiing partner, but will be followed by two bulldozers hauling industrial sledges packed with the crew's living quarters, supplies, fuel and a science lab.
The large amount of kit is necessary because the British government demands that any Antarctic expedition is self-sufficient. Sir Ranulph was speaking as he prepared to set sail on a month-long journey from the Thames to Antarctica.”
Let’s hope he and his team completes their mission and return safe and well. It will be great tracking their progress, from the comfort of my warm armchair, sipping a mug of cocoa, admiring my usual Christmas present, yet more slippers.
Eddie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranulph_Fiennes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/9726512/Fears-of-Sir-Ranulph-Fiennes-ahead-of-lung-bursting-impossible-journey-across-Antarctica.html
How Drug Company Money is Undermining Science !
When it comes to making health care decisions, which can deeply impact your life, you need access to truthful, unbiased information and science, or at least access to a physician who does.
Yet true, independent research -- the foundation upon which the modern medical system is supposed to be based -- is becoming an increasingly rare commodity … if it's not already extinct.
In a scathing expose in Scientific American,1 journalism professor Charles Seife shows very clearly how the pharmaceutical industry is funneling money to prominent research scientists conducting studies on their products, and no one – not the researchers, not their funding sources, not scientific institutions and not even the government – appears able (or willing) to stop it.
Take Avandia, the diabetes drug that is now known to have killed tens of thousands of people and significantly increase the risk of heart attack and stroke. Research from the Mayo Clinic revealed that 90 percent of scientists who wrote favorable articles about the drug had financial ties to GlaxoSmithKline, the drug's maker.2 A committee of independent experts still recommended that Avandia remain on the market, despite its clear risks, and a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight board voted 8 to 7 to accept the advice.
600 percent increase in number of parents refusing vaccinations for their children (Australia)
Parents across Australia are waking up in droves to the dangers of vaccines, as evidenced by new government figures showing a major uptick in the number of parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their children. According to the data, there has been a 600 percent increase in recent years in the number of informed vaccine opponents who are simply not willing to inject their offspring with toxic, and largely untested, chemical cocktails.
So many Australian parents are taking charge of their children's health and making informed vaccination decisions, in fact, the Australian government is now working feverishly to dissuade and re-indoctrinate them back into the vaccine fold. According to 3AW 693 News Talk in Australia, the Australian Medical Association, along with the Academy of Science, has published a 20-page propaganda pamphlet that attempts to discard all the opposing science against vaccines as "common myths," and instead reassure everyone that vaccines are perfectly safe.
But people are not buying it, and the establishment "down under" is starting to panic. During a recent interview with talk show host Neil Mitchell, who on numerous occasions has taken the liberty to express his misguided opinion that parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are committing child abuse, Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) President Meryl Dorey explained how her work in presenting the vaccination science often ignored by the mainstream media is helping to shift public opinions.
http://www.naturalnews.com/038239_Australia_vaccinations_parents.html
So many Australian parents are taking charge of their children's health and making informed vaccination decisions, in fact, the Australian government is now working feverishly to dissuade and re-indoctrinate them back into the vaccine fold. According to 3AW 693 News Talk in Australia, the Australian Medical Association, along with the Academy of Science, has published a 20-page propaganda pamphlet that attempts to discard all the opposing science against vaccines as "common myths," and instead reassure everyone that vaccines are perfectly safe.
But people are not buying it, and the establishment "down under" is starting to panic. During a recent interview with talk show host Neil Mitchell, who on numerous occasions has taken the liberty to express his misguided opinion that parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are committing child abuse, Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) President Meryl Dorey explained how her work in presenting the vaccination science often ignored by the mainstream media is helping to shift public opinions.
http://www.naturalnews.com/038239_Australia_vaccinations_parents.html
Wednesday, 5 December 2012
Stuart Hall charged with indecent assaults !
The 82-year-old from Wilmslow in Cheshire has been charged following complaints to police about alleged incidents involving three girls aged between nine and 16. Lancashire Police said the offences were alleged to have been committed between 1974 and 1984.Mr Hall has been bailed to appear before Preston magistrates in January. In a broadcasting career spanning five decades, he is perhaps best known for his distinctive style of football reporting on BBC Radio 5 live. Mr Hall was appointed OBE in the 2012 New Year Honours for services to broadcasting and charity.
Let's hope the Police know what they are doing. Lies were told about Lord McAlpine and many will be paying the price for besmirching a man of high repute !
Eddie
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20618520
Dave Brubeck Dead: Jazz Legend Dies Aged 91 RIP.
A sad day for me, Dave Brubeck has passed on, a great musician and innovator, he will be sadly missed. His drummer for many years was Joseph Albert Morello (July 17, 1928 – March 12, 2011) was for me one of the all time greats. I played drums for around fifty years, and Joe, blind for many years was one of my gurus and governors, he was total class, and taste personified. Check this vid out, the first and maybe only hit record in 5/4 time.
Eddie
2012 Blood Glucose Meter Satisfaction Study.
This inaugural study examines satisfaction among meter users who currently use a blood glucose meter to test their blood sugar levels. Overall satisfaction is measured across six factors (in order of importance): performance; ease of use; design; features; cost of test strips; and training. Overall satisfaction with blood glucose meters averages 827 (on a 1,000-point scale).
Satisfaction among meter users who have experienced zero testing problems in the past 12 months (840) is 81 points higher than among those who have experienced at least one problem (759). Additionally, an easy-to-navigate menu is extremely important to satisfaction, which is 62 points higher among meter users who say the navigation menu is easy to use (849) than among those who say the navigation menu is not easy to use (787).
Roche Diagnostics ranks highest among blood glucose meter manufacturers with a satisfaction score of 838 and performs particularly well in the performance factor, reflecting a high level of confidence among users that they are obtaining accurate readings. Abbott Diabetes Care ranks second with a score of 837, followed by Bayer Diabetes Care at 830.
http://www.jdpower.com/content/press-release/D8lNJXE/2012-blood-glucose-meter-satisfaction-study.htm
Satisfaction among meter users who have experienced zero testing problems in the past 12 months (840) is 81 points higher than among those who have experienced at least one problem (759). Additionally, an easy-to-navigate menu is extremely important to satisfaction, which is 62 points higher among meter users who say the navigation menu is easy to use (849) than among those who say the navigation menu is not easy to use (787).
Roche Diagnostics ranks highest among blood glucose meter manufacturers with a satisfaction score of 838 and performs particularly well in the performance factor, reflecting a high level of confidence among users that they are obtaining accurate readings. Abbott Diabetes Care ranks second with a score of 837, followed by Bayer Diabetes Care at 830.
http://www.jdpower.com/content/press-release/D8lNJXE/2012-blood-glucose-meter-satisfaction-study.htm
Tuesday, 4 December 2012
Vitamin D Connected to Women's Cognitive Performance !
New research shows that vitamin D may be a vital component for the cognitive health of women as they age.
Higher vitamin D dietary intake is associated with a lower risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, according to research conducted by a team led by Cedric Annweiler, M.D., Ph.D., at the Angers University Hospital in France.
At the same time, a team of researchers led by Yelena Slinin, M.D., M.S., at the VA Medical Center in Minneapolis found that low vitamin D levels among older women are associated with higher odds of cognitive impairment and a higher risk of cognitive decline.
Vitamin D is an important, essential vitamin people obtain largely from eating foods like fatty fish, butter and cheese or drinking fortified milk. The body makes Vitamin D when it is exposed to the ultraviolet rays of the sun.
Slinin’s team based its analysis on 6,257 older women who had vitamin D levels measured during the Study of Osteopathic Fractures and whose cognitive function was tested by the Mini-Mental State Examination and/or Trail Making Test Part B.
Very low levels of vitamin D — less than 10 nanograms per milliliter of blood serum — were associated with higher odds of cognitive impairment at baseline.
Low vitamin D levels — less than 20 nanograms per milliliter — among cognitively-impaired women were associated with a higher risk of cognitive decline, as measured by performance on the Mini-Mental State Examination, according to the researchers.
Annweieler’s team’s findings were based on data from 498 women who participated in the Toulouse cohort of the Epidemiology of Osteoporosis study.
Women who developed Alzheimer’s disease had lower baseline vitamin D intakes — an average of 50.3 micrograms per week — than those who developed other dementias (an average of 63.6 micrograms per week) or no dementia at all (an average of 59.0 micrograms per week), these researchers found.
These new studies follow an article published in the Journals of Gerontology Series A earlier this year that found that both men and women who don’t get enough vitamin D — either from diet, supplements, or sun exposure — may be at increased risk of developing mobility limitations and disability.
The two new studies appear in the Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences.
Graham
Monday, 3 December 2012
Low HDL Cholesterol and the Risk of Diabetic Nephropathy and Retinopathy !
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Although low HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) is an established risk factor for atherosclerosis, data on HDL-C and the risk of microvascular disease are limited. We tested the association between HDL-C and microvascular disease in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A total of 11,140 patients with type 2 diabetes and at least one additional vascular risk factor were followed a median of 5 years. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between baseline HDL-C and the development of new or worsening microvascular disease, defined prospectively as a composite of renal and retinal events.
RESULTS The mean baseline HDL-C level was 1.3 mmol/L (SD 0.45 mmol/L [range 0.1–4.0]). During follow-up, 32% of patients developed new or worsening microvascular disease, with 28% experiencing a renal event and 6% a retinal event. Compared with patients in the highest third, those in the lowest third had a 17% higher risk of microvascular disease (adjusted hazard ratio 1.17 [95% CI 1.06–1.28], P = 0.001) after adjustment for potential confounders and regression dilution. This was driven by a 19% higher risk of renal events (1.19 [1.08–1.32], P = 0.0005). There was no association between thirds of HDL-C and retinal events (1.01 [0.82–1.25], P = 0.9).
CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes, HDL-C level is an independent risk factor for the development of microvascular disease affecting the kidney but not the retina.
Graham
Weight Loss Surgery May Not Combat Diabetes Long-Term.
Weight loss surgery, which in recent years has been seen as an increasingly attractive option for treating Type 2 diabetes, may not be as effective against the disease as it was initially thought to be, according to a new report. The study found that many obese Type 2 diabetics who undergo gastric bypass surgery do not experience a remission of their disease, and of those that do, about a third redevelop diabetes within five years of their operation.
“Some people are under the impression that you have surgery and you’re cured,” said Dr. Vivian Fonseca, the president for medicine and science for the American Diabetes Association, who was not involved in the study. “There have been a lot of claims about how wonderful surgery is for diabetes, and I think this offers a more realistic picture.”
The findings suggest that weight loss surgery may be most effective for treating diabetes in those whose disease is not very advanced. “What we’re learning is that not all diabetic patients do as well as others,” said Dr. David E. Arterburn, the lead author of the study and an associate investigator at the Group Health Research Institute in Seattle. “Those who are early in diabetes seem to do the best, which makes a case for potentially earlier intervention.”
After surgery, about 68 percent of patients experienced a complete remission of their diabetes. But within five years, 35 percent of those patients had it return. Taken together, that means that most of the subjects in the study, about 56 percent — a figure that includes those whose disease never remitted — had no long-lasting remission of diabetes after surgery.
Report highlights concerns over 'alarmingly high' death rates at 'full to bursting' hospitals !
Death rates at 12 NHS hospital trusts in England were alarmingly high last year, according to an influential report.
The number of patient deaths are above expected levels at the 12 trusts, the Dr Foster Hospital Guide found.
Patient safety is also being risked because hospitals are “full to bursting”, with many regularly breaching the 85% limit set in place to protect patients.
Figures shows that in 2011-2012 occupancy was running at 88% in midweek, while averaging 90% for 11 of the 12 months, excluding quiet periods including Christmas, The Guardian, which has seen the report in full, added that the national level was over 85% for 230 of the 365 days of last year, and over 90% for 19.
Dr Andrew Goddard, the director of the medical workforce unit at the Royal College of Physicians, which represents hospital doctors, told the Guardian: “If you ask any doctor in this country they would say that the system is straining to burst; particularly in winter, but now it's increasingly happening the rest of the year.
The 12 hospital trusts where the number of deaths are higher than expected in two of the four mortality indicators are: Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Medway NHS Foundation Trust, North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust, Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust.
High Fructose Corn Syrup Fuelling Type 2 Diabetes Epidemic !
A new study suggests countries that use large amounts of high fructose corn syrup in their food may be helping to fuel the global epidemic of type 2 diabetes. Researchers from the University of Oxford and the University of Southern California (USC) found a 20% higher proportion of the population have diabetes in countries with high use of the food sweetener compared to countries that do not use it.
Ulijaszek says:
"Many people regard fructose as a healthy natural sugar from fruit, and that's true. Natural fructose found in fruit for example, is fine: the 10 g or so of fructose in an apple is probably released slowly because of the fibre within the apple and because the fructose is inside the cells of the apple."
But, he goes on to explain, "there is evidence that the body struggles to metabolize large amounts of fructose that does not come from fruit, and there is a risk for type 2 diabetes", because "fructose and sucrose are not metabolically equivalent".
"Many people regard fructose as a healthy natural sugar from fruit, and that's true. Natural fructose found in fruit for example, is fine: the 10 g or so of fructose in an apple is probably released slowly because of the fibre within the apple and because the fructose is inside the cells of the apple."
But, he goes on to explain, "there is evidence that the body struggles to metabolize large amounts of fructose that does not come from fruit, and there is a risk for type 2 diabetes", because "fructose and sucrose are not metabolically equivalent".
Obese Children More Vulnerable to Food Advertising
Rates of childhood obesity have tripled in the past 30 years, and food marketing has been implicated as one factor contributing to this trend. Every year, companies spend more than $10 billion in the US marketing their food and beverages to children; 98% of the food products advertised to children on television are high in fat, sugar, or sodium. In a new study scheduled for publication in The Journal of Pediatrics, researchers used neuroimaging to study the effects of food logos on obese and healthy weight children.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121129232607.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121129232607.htm
Sunday, 2 December 2012
Johnnie Walker Black Label whisky restores diabetics eye sight !
A pensioner from Taranaki, New Zealand, who went blind after his vodka reacted with his diabetes medication, had his eyes saved by a bottle of whisky.
65-year-old Denis Duthie decided to have a few drinks to celebrate his parents' 50th marriage anniversary.
But when he walked into the bedroom of his home, he suddenly found that he could not see anything.
"I thought it had got dark and I'd missed out on a bit of time but it was only about half-past-three in the afternoon," the Daily Mail quoted him as telling the New Zealand Herald.
"I was fumbling around the bedroom for the light switch but ... I'd just gone completely blind," he said.
Duthie hoped he would be able to sleep it off, but after waking up next morning he was still unable to see a thing, so he went to Taranaki Base Hospital.
As surgery got underway, the doctors thought that Duthie could have formaldehyde poisoning, which can be treated by administering ethanol- a strong type of alcohol found in drinks like whisky.
However, the hospital did not have enough medical ethanol so a registrar was sent to the store to buy a bottle of Johnnie Walker Black Label whisky.
The whisky was then dripped into his stomach through a tube.
"I woke up five days later and I could see as soon as I could open my eyes," Duthie said.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/mad-mad-world/Whisky-restores-pensioners-eyesight-after-vodka-blinds-him/articleshow/17451665.cms
Don't try this at home folks.
Eddie
65-year-old Denis Duthie decided to have a few drinks to celebrate his parents' 50th marriage anniversary.
But when he walked into the bedroom of his home, he suddenly found that he could not see anything.
"I thought it had got dark and I'd missed out on a bit of time but it was only about half-past-three in the afternoon," the Daily Mail quoted him as telling the New Zealand Herald.
"I was fumbling around the bedroom for the light switch but ... I'd just gone completely blind," he said.
Duthie hoped he would be able to sleep it off, but after waking up next morning he was still unable to see a thing, so he went to Taranaki Base Hospital.
As surgery got underway, the doctors thought that Duthie could have formaldehyde poisoning, which can be treated by administering ethanol- a strong type of alcohol found in drinks like whisky.
However, the hospital did not have enough medical ethanol so a registrar was sent to the store to buy a bottle of Johnnie Walker Black Label whisky.
The whisky was then dripped into his stomach through a tube.
"I woke up five days later and I could see as soon as I could open my eyes," Duthie said.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/mad-mad-world/Whisky-restores-pensioners-eyesight-after-vodka-blinds-him/articleshow/17451665.cms
Don't try this at home folks.
Eddie
Full English Breakfast Back On The Menu !
US scientists challenge scares about food links to cancer !
American research finds cancer food scares don't stand up to scrutiny with most culprit ingredients showing little or no increased risk of disease.
They are mainstay stories of tabloid newspapers and women's magazines, linking common foods from burnt toast to low-fat salad dressing to cancer. But now US scientists have warned that many reports connecting familiar ingredients with increased cancer risk have little statistical significance and should be treated with caution.
"When we examined the reports, we found many had borderline or no statistical significance," said Dr Jonathan Schoenfeld of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.
In a paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Schoenfeld and his co-author, John Ioannidis of Stanford University, say trials have repeatedly failed to find effects for observational studies which had initially linked various foods to cancer. Nevertheless these initial studies have often triggered public debates "rife with emotional and sensational rhetoric that can subject the general public to increased anxiety and contradictory advice".
Recent reports have linked colouring in fizzy drinks, low-fat salad dressing, burnt toast and tea to elevated cancer risk. In the past, red meat, hot dogs, doughnuts and bacon have also been highlighted. The cancer risks involved in excess alcohol consumption are not disputed by scientists, but other links have been less easy to substantiate.
To examine the implications of these reports, Schoenfeld and Ioannidis selected ingredients at random from the Boston Cooking-School Cook Book. "We used random numbers to select recipes and collected the ingredients from these" said Schoenfeld. "This gave us a good range of common – and a few not so common – foods. Then we put each of those ingredients into a search engine to find out their associations with cancer risks in medical literature. We found that 40 out of the 50 ingredients we had selected had been studied as having possible links with cancer. The 10 that had not been studied were less common ingredients."
Among the 40 foods that had been linked to cancer risks were flour, coffee, butter, olives, sugar, bread and salt, as well as peas, duck, tomatoes, lemon, onion, celery, carrot, parsley and lamb, together with more unusual ingredients, including lobster, tripe, veal, mace, cinnamon and mustard.
Schoenfeld and Ioannidis then analysed the scientific papers produced after initial investigations into these foods. They also looked at how many times an ingredient was supposed to increase cancer risk and the statistical significance of the studies.
"Statistical significance" is the term used for an assessment of whether a set of observations reflects a real pattern or one thrown up by chance. The two researchers' work suggests that many reports linking foodstuffs to cancer revealed no valid medical pattern at all.
"We found that, if we took one individual study that finds a link with cancer, it was very often difficult to repeat that in other studies," said Schoenfeld. "People need to know whether a study linking a food to cancer risk is backed up before jumping to conclusions."
Additional research by Gemma O'Neill
Graham
Grapefruit drug interactions ‘increasing’
The number of medications with the potential to interact with grapefruit and cause serious adverse effects is rising by an average of more than six per year, shows a new analysis.
The Canadian review looked at 190 scientific articles on PubMed and prescribing information and found the number of medications causing serious adverse events upon interacting with grapefruit has risen from 17 to 43 in the period between 2008 and 2012.
The review highlighted halofantrine, maraviroc, lovastatin, simvastatin, dronedarone, ketamine, lurasidone and domperidone as the medications with a ‘very high’ predicted risk of interacting with grapefruit juice.
They found that although an increasing interval between taking grapefruit juice and a potential interacting medication decreased the size of the adverse effect, but it only required a small quantity of grapefruit juice – around 200-250ml – to have a sufficient duration of action to affect interacting drugs administered once daily.
The authors concluded: ‘The increasing numbers of newly marketed grapefruit-affected drugs possessing substantial adverse clinical effects necessitates an understanding of this interaction and the application of this knowledge for the safe use of drugs in general practice.’
Saturday, 1 December 2012
A wake up call is on the way to Phillip Lee !
Phillip Lee featured in a thread on here earlier in the week “ Phillip Lee GP MP wins our greedy bastard of the month award” For me he epitomises all that is wrong in our society and in the world of healthcare. Never in the UK’s history, have we seen such a lack lustre bunch of incompetents, as our present government. The NHS diabetes audits, published year after year, prove no progress is being made in the fight against diabetes. Is it any wonder, with numbskulls like Phillip Lee with his hand on the tiller, of both government and healthcare.
A wake up call is on the way to Phillip Lee, the letter copied below. The writer gave us permission to publish it on this blog. How will Lee respond ? Will he respond ? In my opinion he should offer a grovelling apology and promise to do better in future. But my experience tells me, he will whimper he was misquoted and offer a slippery limp wristed response, before swiftly heading for the exit door. Time will tell.
Eddie
Dear Dr Lee, MP,
I was horrified by your recent comments regarding those of us with Type 2 Diabetes. Even more so when I learned that you are a GP. As I am sure you now realise, your comments were completely misinformed and you unfairly encouraged prejudice against people with a disease – that you as a GP are supposed to support. Whilst I say I am sure you realise how wrong and misjudged your comments were, I note that there is no mention of them on your website and no retraction. Indeed there is the comment from 2007: “More than 1.5 million Britons now have Type II Diabetes. This is thought to be a direct consequence of poor choices in diet and diminishing levels of exercise.”
I was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes this year at the same age as you – 42. Please don’t believe that it could not happen to you. I have never been overweight, never smoked, exercised regularly for many years and I have always been careful with what I eat. But in your misinformed comments you seem to think that I should “pay for [my] drugs at cost, in that way you would be attaching a consequence to lifestyle choice." I have found it hard to come to terms with my chronic disease – in part because of the common misrepresentation of those with Type 2 Diabetes as being fat, lazy, stupid people who don’t care for their health and who have brought the disease on themselves – a “lifestyle choice” as you call it. When I was diagnosed, people told me I must have been eating too much sugar! Please look at the images in the media that go along with your comments to see the stereotype that is out there and to see what your comments help to encourage. You are stigmatising a group of people who as a GP you should know more about.
As a GP you should know that although the understanding of Diabetes has progressed a long way in recent years and shown that it is in fact a set of many diseases with varying causes, true cause and effect is still largely not understood. It is now thought that most, if not all, of the Diabetes diseases have a genetic component. There is no evidence that eating doughnuts causes Diabetes as you imply.
Considering your argument further – because I realise you were using those of us with Type 2 Diabetes as an example – you appear to think that the NHS should be making decisions about who is ‘worthy’ to treat rather than simply treating people who are unwell. This argument is unsustainable – where does it end? With committees reviewing cases to determine whether or not individuals are worthy of being treated? If you were unfortunate enough to get hit by a car when crossing the road because you didn’t take enough care, should you pay for your own treatment? Should those who have lung cancer and have smoked be denied NHS treatment? What about someone who contracts malaria whilst on holiday? Or someone who contracts HIV/AIDS from unprotected sex?
Your primary concern appears to be the cost of the NHS. You, of course, know the implications of denying medication to those of us with Type 2 Diabetes. Without control of blood glucose, we are susceptible to complications such as heart disease, blindness, neuropathy and amputations. These complications are the true cost (both financially and in terms of impact on people) of Type 2 Diabetes. By denying medication, you will increase the level of these complications. Do you then propose that these individuals are not treated on the NHS for these complications? Your proposal would have the effect of increasing overall cost – in particular to the lives of the individuals and their families.
I understand and share your concern about the increasing burden of Diabetes on the NHS. And so I would ask you to be truly radical instead of falling back on stereotypes and poorly thought-through arguments. The NHS gives very poor advice to people with Diabetes – advice which actually exacerbates their condition. By ignoring the NHS advice and following advice from web forums such aswww.Diabetes.co.uk and www.eattoyourmeter.org and sites such as www.bloodsugar101.com I have managed to get my blood glucose under control and down to levels of those without Diabetes. This is achieved through careful management of carbohydrates in my diet and following a ketogenic diet which is high in fat. It has also had a beneficial impact on my lipid profile by dramatically reducing my triglyceride level. But the NHS advice is against this diet (and they are unable to provide evidence for their claims) and encourages those with Diabetes to eat substantial amounts of carbohydrates in a ‘healthy’ diet. The level of carbohydrates that the NHS recommends are very unhealthy for those with Diabetes and lead to the awful and debilitating (and costly!) complications. I would ask that you take a truly radical approach to Diabetes care and challenge the status quo of current NHS care which I believe leads to substantial negative impacts on individuals and increased cost for the NHS. On the above sites there are many, many examples of people who followed NHS advice to their detriment but who have managed to positively impact their health by going against NHS advice. Please take time to find out more from the sufferers of this disease.
A debate is needed on how we, as a country, are going to pay for our health in the future. But I expect MPs (and GPs) to help lead an informed debate rather than one based on prejudice and misinformation.
Yours sincerely etc
A wake up call is on the way to Phillip Lee, the letter copied below. The writer gave us permission to publish it on this blog. How will Lee respond ? Will he respond ? In my opinion he should offer a grovelling apology and promise to do better in future. But my experience tells me, he will whimper he was misquoted and offer a slippery limp wristed response, before swiftly heading for the exit door. Time will tell.
Eddie
Dear Dr Lee, MP,
I was horrified by your recent comments regarding those of us with Type 2 Diabetes. Even more so when I learned that you are a GP. As I am sure you now realise, your comments were completely misinformed and you unfairly encouraged prejudice against people with a disease – that you as a GP are supposed to support. Whilst I say I am sure you realise how wrong and misjudged your comments were, I note that there is no mention of them on your website and no retraction. Indeed there is the comment from 2007: “More than 1.5 million Britons now have Type II Diabetes. This is thought to be a direct consequence of poor choices in diet and diminishing levels of exercise.”
I was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes this year at the same age as you – 42. Please don’t believe that it could not happen to you. I have never been overweight, never smoked, exercised regularly for many years and I have always been careful with what I eat. But in your misinformed comments you seem to think that I should “pay for [my] drugs at cost, in that way you would be attaching a consequence to lifestyle choice." I have found it hard to come to terms with my chronic disease – in part because of the common misrepresentation of those with Type 2 Diabetes as being fat, lazy, stupid people who don’t care for their health and who have brought the disease on themselves – a “lifestyle choice” as you call it. When I was diagnosed, people told me I must have been eating too much sugar! Please look at the images in the media that go along with your comments to see the stereotype that is out there and to see what your comments help to encourage. You are stigmatising a group of people who as a GP you should know more about.
As a GP you should know that although the understanding of Diabetes has progressed a long way in recent years and shown that it is in fact a set of many diseases with varying causes, true cause and effect is still largely not understood. It is now thought that most, if not all, of the Diabetes diseases have a genetic component. There is no evidence that eating doughnuts causes Diabetes as you imply.
Considering your argument further – because I realise you were using those of us with Type 2 Diabetes as an example – you appear to think that the NHS should be making decisions about who is ‘worthy’ to treat rather than simply treating people who are unwell. This argument is unsustainable – where does it end? With committees reviewing cases to determine whether or not individuals are worthy of being treated? If you were unfortunate enough to get hit by a car when crossing the road because you didn’t take enough care, should you pay for your own treatment? Should those who have lung cancer and have smoked be denied NHS treatment? What about someone who contracts malaria whilst on holiday? Or someone who contracts HIV/AIDS from unprotected sex?
Your primary concern appears to be the cost of the NHS. You, of course, know the implications of denying medication to those of us with Type 2 Diabetes. Without control of blood glucose, we are susceptible to complications such as heart disease, blindness, neuropathy and amputations. These complications are the true cost (both financially and in terms of impact on people) of Type 2 Diabetes. By denying medication, you will increase the level of these complications. Do you then propose that these individuals are not treated on the NHS for these complications? Your proposal would have the effect of increasing overall cost – in particular to the lives of the individuals and their families.
I understand and share your concern about the increasing burden of Diabetes on the NHS. And so I would ask you to be truly radical instead of falling back on stereotypes and poorly thought-through arguments. The NHS gives very poor advice to people with Diabetes – advice which actually exacerbates their condition. By ignoring the NHS advice and following advice from web forums such aswww.Diabetes.co.uk and www.eattoyourmeter.org and sites such as www.bloodsugar101.com I have managed to get my blood glucose under control and down to levels of those without Diabetes. This is achieved through careful management of carbohydrates in my diet and following a ketogenic diet which is high in fat. It has also had a beneficial impact on my lipid profile by dramatically reducing my triglyceride level. But the NHS advice is against this diet (and they are unable to provide evidence for their claims) and encourages those with Diabetes to eat substantial amounts of carbohydrates in a ‘healthy’ diet. The level of carbohydrates that the NHS recommends are very unhealthy for those with Diabetes and lead to the awful and debilitating (and costly!) complications. I would ask that you take a truly radical approach to Diabetes care and challenge the status quo of current NHS care which I believe leads to substantial negative impacts on individuals and increased cost for the NHS. On the above sites there are many, many examples of people who followed NHS advice to their detriment but who have managed to positively impact their health by going against NHS advice. Please take time to find out more from the sufferers of this disease.
A debate is needed on how we, as a country, are going to pay for our health in the future. But I expect MPs (and GPs) to help lead an informed debate rather than one based on prejudice and misinformation.
Yours sincerely etc
Low-carb diet is the way forward in diabetes ! Says Dr Katharine Morrison
Many will remember Katharine from the days when she was a mod on diabetes.co.uk. Without doubt one of the best mods the forum ever had. A staunch supporter of lowcarb, and one of the few UK Doctors brave enough to stick their heads above the parapet, and not be a slave to out of date information and big pharma hype. She helped me on several occasions. With more Doctors like her the gruesome NHS stats would be showing great improvement, alas she is part of a small enlightened group, Kendrick, Briffa, Wortman et al, and the carnage goes on.
"In Professor Lois Jovanovich's clinic in Santa Barbara in the US, the rate for babies of mothers with diabetes is the same as in the general population. She encourages patients to eat a restricted carbohydrate diet of 90-135g a day. She uses this and other techniques to maintain blood sugars as normal as possible in pre-pregnancy and pregnancy. You would think that pregnancy centres in the UK would be keen to try this out – but they aren't.
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/low-carb-diet-is-the-way-forward-in-diabetes/14080915.article#.ULk_9-Qj7Sg
"In Professor Lois Jovanovich's clinic in Santa Barbara in the US, the rate for babies of mothers with diabetes is the same as in the general population. She encourages patients to eat a restricted carbohydrate diet of 90-135g a day. She uses this and other techniques to maintain blood sugars as normal as possible in pre-pregnancy and pregnancy. You would think that pregnancy centres in the UK would be keen to try this out – but they aren't.
The complications of diabetes exact a terrible toll on patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The landmark Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)1 showed the higher the blood sugars, the faster complications develop.
High post-prandial blood sugars not only cause glycaemic-related damage, but set off an inflammatory cascade that causes endothelial damage and cancer. Post-meal blood sugars can be reduced if a restricted carbohydrate diet is adopted. Long-term adherence and prevention of complications can be achieved. Some complications can even be reversed. So why don't diabetes clinics throughout the UK promote the restricted-carb diet for their patients?
The DCCT trial showed adolescent patients with type 1 diabetes had three times as many hypos as adult patients, despite having an average HbA1c of 8% compared with the adult group average of 7%. Some US endocrinologists encourage their adolescent patients to follow a restricted-carb diet so that they can safely reduce their blood sugar. So why aren't adolescent diabetes clinics in the UK exploring this option with their patients?
The current high carb/low fat diet started off in the 1970s in the US, when Senator George McGovern brought in dietary guidelines to limit fat in the diet for the first time. He was strongly influenced by people who genuinely believed that fat, particularly saturated fat, was a major cause of arteriosclerosis. Scientists of the time pleaded for time, aware there was no evidence to support the claims. Senator McGovern famously said: ‘We don't have time to wait for evidence. We have to do something now.'
We are still waiting for evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease. But as the fat content of our diets has decreased over the last 20 years, the carbohydrate intake has zoomed, and we have seen a massive rise in obesity and its related illnesses.
Every day we hear how the NHS is in financial crisis. A patient with diabetes who has complications costs the NHS nine times more than a well-controlled patient without complications. All the features of metabolic syndrome can be reversed by a low carb/high fat/moderate protein diet. This saves money on drugs and other treatments too. What are the economic and personal costs of failing to give women with diabetes the dietary information to reduce their risk of having a deformed or dead baby?
If any one macronutrient deserves the blame for the obesity crisis and poor diabetic control, it is surely carbohydrates rather than fats. Sugars and starch all end up raising the blood sugar pretty quickly after a meal. Although patients with diabetes are advised to reduce sugars to some extent, the same advice is not given to restrict starch. Diabetes UK tells patients to base every meal around starch. In the patient's interest? I don't think so."
Dr Katharine Morrison is a GP in Mauchline, Ayrshire
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/low-carb-diet-is-the-way-forward-in-diabetes/14080915.article#.ULk_9-Qj7Sg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)