Healthy Eating Tips from Diabetes UK: Good?

[Proud to be erratic]

I've deliberately started this thread in the General Messages segment, but won't be offended if a moderator decides to move it to, say, the food segment.

A recent thread resulted in @Jessica DUK offering a link from DUK with suggestions for how a carer or partner could help someone with D. That DUK note included a link to Healthy Eating Tips, including 10 ways to eat well with Diabetes:

10 tips for healthy eating with diabetes

What 'diabetes diet' should you really be following? Try out these tips for healthy eating, from choosing smarter snacks to eating more fruit and veg.

www.diabetes.org.uk

I had a look to remind myself if there were other things I might doto maintain or improve my current diet.

Is it me, or are these 10 tips fundamentally flawed for anyone not on insulin?

I have always understood that for those not on insulin the basic principle is to reduce carbohydrates to a point that one's body can cope - with or without help from oral meds. That reduction would come from choosing lower carb foods in conjunction with smaller portion sizes of high carb items.

So why do the "healthy" tips promote brown rice in preference to white rice, when the carb content is effectively the same?
Why suggest more fruit without emphasising that many fruits are relatively high carb (eg mango, pineapple, bananas) and best avoided?

I stopped reading these top ten tips. They jarred so much that I ended up seriously doubting their credibility for any diabetic person who didn't have the benefit of taking insulin to offset the carbs I'm eating.

Am I wrong? If I've misjudged the value of this advice I would suggest at the very least that DUK should tell the author that perception matters and my perception is that the advice is unhelpful and potentially erroneous as it is currently written.

 

[Robin]

I think the main stumbling block is the fact that the official NHS guidelines still advocate a low fat, high carb (albeit slow release) diet, and DUK has to tread a careful line between recommending the 'Official' diet, or recommending a low or lower carb diet. The forum has tried to nudge them in the direction of lower carb over the years, and there have been some changes. But the bottom line for many newly diagnosed people, I suspect, (and probably not the people who end up seeking advice on the forum) is that their diet is so poor, that even cutting out sugar and swapping to a slower release whole grain diet would be a massive step in the right direction.

 

[Martin.A]

Wholegrain rice, pasta and bread are healthier choices whether you're diabetic or not, but the advice sometimes comes (correctly, in my view) with the caveat that you should reduce your portion size. There's no mention of reduced portion sizes on the '10 Tips' page as far as I can see, nor does it mention swaps like riced cauliflower or non-grain pasta.

 

[Leadinglights]

I think you have a good point and that is why as far as I read it in the introduction to the Freshwell program that they found the Eat Well Plate did not work as it was too high in carb for many who are Type 2.
However I talked to my daughter who is an obstetrician who said that many of her pregnant mother's diets was so bad that even following the Eat Well plate would be a huge improvement.
I suspect that may be the case for many who are diagnosed but I also think they are the people who do not engage with changes to their diet and so end up on more and more medication.

 

[Docb]

I see where you are coming from @Proud to be erratic.

Rant alert!!!

It is written very much in the modern style. Over done, trying to cover too many angles, heavily caveated and been through enough hands to make sure that anybody who thinks their opinion needs to be taken into account will be happy. As a result, in my 'umble opinion, you finish up with something that all those in the know would agree to, but is too convoluted to be of much use to the target audience. Most will have clicked away before they had scrolled down to the actual tips! And by the way, fancy formatting and coloured text does not overcome these problems.

The people who write this stuff should be compelled to work with quill pen on parchment - that would cut the word count down for a start.

Rant over!

 

[Proud to be erratic]

I think the main stumbling block is the fact that the official NHS guidelines still advocate a low fat, high carb (albeit slow release) diet, and DUK has to tread a careful line between recommending the 'Official' diet, or recommending a low or lower carb diet. The forum has tried to nudge them in the direction of lower carb over the years, and there have been some changes. But the bottom line for many newly diagnosed people, I suspect, (and probably not the people who end up seeking advice on the forum) is that their diet is so poor, that even cutting out sugar and swapping to a slower release whole grain diet would be a massive step in the right direction.

Yes, I get the point about DUK needing to tread carefully, but I'm not really sure why. I was indoctrinated in my formative adult years that if you see something is wrong and walk on by you condone that wrong and thus you approve that wrong. That is how the top ten tips feel right now.

Is DUK financed by the NHS or the Government?

I can't get my mind around why DUK just suggests or recommends lower carb, with a heavy caveat and explanation about the relevance for folks not on insulin. Plus just avoiding the contradiction with the "Official" diet or even being brave and saying that the DUK advice is in contradiction because ..... and explain.

 

[Proud to be erratic]

I see where you are coming from @Proud to be erratic.

Rant alert!!!

It is written very much in the modern style. Over done, trying to cover too many angles, heavily caveated and been through enough hands to make sure that anybody who thinks their opinion needs to be taken into account will be happy. As a result, in my 'umble opinion, you finish up with something that all those in the know would agree to, but is too convoluted to be of much use to the target audience. Most will have clicked away before they had scrolled down to the actual tips! And by the way, fancy formatting and coloured text does not overcome these problems.

The people who write this stuff should be compelled to work with quill pen on parchment - that would cut the word count down for a start.

Rant over!

I was active in various levels of property management and major proprty redevelopment when the H & S legislation was being taken from its previous base of the Factories Act to its current much wider remit. [ Building work is not really akin to manufacturing in a factory and was previously blatantly ignored in connection with safety].

The first draft was a straightforward short document that said "all building work must be done safely ..... and that safety is the formal and legal esponsibility of the Head of the Organisation doing the work". By the time various Parliamentary sub-committees had amended to a pount where it could be put formally before Parliament it was (as you so rightly say):

Over done, trying to cover too many angles, heavily caveated and been through enough hands to make sure that anybody who thinks their opinion needs to be taken into account will be happy.

It is now several volumes strong and nobody has yet been sent to prison for the many deaths that still occur on construction sites. Even after the Grenfell enquiry has published its findings I don't expect anyone to be incourt for manslaughter; too much leeway and wriggle room in the tomes of H&S legislation.

But DUK could do much better in how it advises its customer base.