-
Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.
-
Learn more about joining the Diabetes UK Support Forum team here: https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/volunteering-opportunities-why-dont-you-join-us.112862/
HEIDI course
- Thread starter Cliff
- Start date
- Status
Adrienne
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Parent
Hi
No not heard of that. It sounds like it is something personal to your PCT and area and they have named it with a female name so as to be like DAFNE. I think it is a marvellous idea and 2.5 hours is fabulous.
I only ever had a 1 hour (well it was supposed to be but don't think it was) chat with a dietician, who wasn't very good, but gave me the basics on carbs and that was it. You only need the basics and off you go. Brilliant.
Can you let us know how it goes please, very interested in this to put to our PCT.
No not heard of that. It sounds like it is something personal to your PCT and area and they have named it with a female name so as to be like DAFNE. I think it is a marvellous idea and 2.5 hours is fabulous.
I only ever had a 1 hour (well it was supposed to be but don't think it was) chat with a dietician, who wasn't very good, but gave me the basics on carbs and that was it. You only need the basics and off you go. Brilliant.
Can you let us know how it goes please, very interested in this to put to our PCT.
Northerner
Admin (Retired)
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
A lot of PCTs have their own education courses - mine was called 'Diabetes4Life', which I thought you could take two ways -either 'Argh! I've got it for life!' or 'Diabetes? Here's how I can live a full and happy life regardless!'
rossi_mac
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
Cliff
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
I'll report back once I've done it. I understand it's for the newly diagnosed so I guess it may have been more relevant to me in October last year than it will be now. That said, I suspect if I had been on it in October, I might have bought into the starchy carbs line which may not have been a good thing.
I'm very keen to hear what the dietician has to say about my lipid profile on my entirely relaxed about fats and proteins diet. It could get "interesting".
I'm very keen to hear what the dietician has to say about my lipid profile on my entirely relaxed about fats and proteins diet. It could get "interesting".
Cliff
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
Went on the course last night and, as promised, here's my account of how it went.
The attendees were quite a mixed bunch. There was one bloke diagnosed in September 09 but most had been diagnosed within the last month, in some cases only a week or so ago. Most of us were overweight but typically by no more than the 'normal' amount of middle age spread. Quite a few appeared normal weight to me. At 45, I was not the youngest by any means - there was one lad who appeared no more than 30.
We all talked about how long it was since we had been diagnosed and how that had come about.
The nurse started off by handing to each of us a card with a different diabetic 'statement' on it which we then had to read out and decide if it was true or false. Mine was 'Type 2 is a mild form of diabetes' which of course we all agreed was false. One of the cards read 'Diabetics cannot eat bananas or grapes' - it was agreed generally that that was a myth. Hand up straight away - doesn't that depend on the individual I asked because I find that any more than a small green banana sends my levels unacceptably high and I know that because I test what different foods do to me. To be fair, I was told that I was quite right but of course 'testing's not for everyone'. It was conceded that ripe bananas might best be avoided or at least that less ripe bananas might not send you so high. Mmm OK.
Insulin production and resistance were discussed in very basic terms without the term 'insulin resistance' actually being used. The pancreas wasn't mentioned.
We then moved on to an exercise where we were asked to estimate the amount of calories used up in half an hour of different activities - running, dancing etc and then to compare that with the amount of calories contained within a bag of crisps. The object I think was to show that if you gave up the bag of crisps, that then helped with improving the calorie deficit in your diet, and by how much it improved it, if you were trying to lose weight - and how much exercise you would have to do to make it up if you went for the snackies. Fair enough.
We talked about HbA1c and very briefly touched on the target level of 6.5%. It was a bit superficial and we moved on quickly. Not so fast - hand up again - isn't HbA1c a bit of an average that hides damaging post-prandial spikes? Agreed that that was so. Isn't it sensible to test to determine what various foods do to your levels rather than just relying on your HbA1c? Again, agreed but 'testing's not for everyone and you might get confused by the readings'.
The dietary advice followed standard NHS guidelines - the healthy diet for diabetics is the same as the healthy diet for everyone else. Saturated fats are the devil's work to be avoided at all cost if your cholesterol level is not to be too high although it was acknowledged that dietary fat only contributes to a small extent and most is what's pumped out by your liver. Some salt avoidance techniques were mentioned which some might have found helpful. GI was mentioned obliquely without the actual term being used - rather, some carbs were described as acting slowly and others quickly. White bread was pointed out as a no-no, as was normal brown bread - the recommendation was for seeded granary bread. Portion control was mentioned but not in much detail. GL was not mentioned at all.
Complications were discussed - neuropathy, retinopathy and nephropathy - without those actual terms being used. The foot care advice was sensible and there was some good stuff on eyesight changes.
Driving advice was inaccurate - it was suggested that those on tablets should advise DVLA whereas this is only required for those on insulin control or with anything else that actually affects their driving performance. It was suggested we all inform our car Insurers of our diabetes but that it probably wouldn't affect our premiums - that has certainly been my experience.
Finally we talked about exercise. Be more active, no need to go to the gym if you don't want to. Personally I find the discipline and structure of gym exercise helpful but I see what they were getting at.
Overall, it was a bit too low key for my tastes and sugar coated to some extent (excuse the pun). The approach seems to be that a small change here and a small change there will make everything fine. There seems to be an assumption that most of us cannot understand the technical detail and we shouldn't be given it because we might get confused. For my part, I found that to get my BG and lipid levels under control involved quite radical changes to my diet and exercise levels combined with self-testing and I'm concerned that the attendees will have walked away with a less than perfect understanding of just what's required.
On a positive note however, when it was finished one of the attendees came up to me and asked me to explain what was involved in self-testing, which I was pleased to do.
The attendees were quite a mixed bunch. There was one bloke diagnosed in September 09 but most had been diagnosed within the last month, in some cases only a week or so ago. Most of us were overweight but typically by no more than the 'normal' amount of middle age spread. Quite a few appeared normal weight to me. At 45, I was not the youngest by any means - there was one lad who appeared no more than 30.
We all talked about how long it was since we had been diagnosed and how that had come about.
The nurse started off by handing to each of us a card with a different diabetic 'statement' on it which we then had to read out and decide if it was true or false. Mine was 'Type 2 is a mild form of diabetes' which of course we all agreed was false. One of the cards read 'Diabetics cannot eat bananas or grapes' - it was agreed generally that that was a myth. Hand up straight away - doesn't that depend on the individual I asked because I find that any more than a small green banana sends my levels unacceptably high and I know that because I test what different foods do to me. To be fair, I was told that I was quite right but of course 'testing's not for everyone'. It was conceded that ripe bananas might best be avoided or at least that less ripe bananas might not send you so high. Mmm OK.
Insulin production and resistance were discussed in very basic terms without the term 'insulin resistance' actually being used. The pancreas wasn't mentioned.
We then moved on to an exercise where we were asked to estimate the amount of calories used up in half an hour of different activities - running, dancing etc and then to compare that with the amount of calories contained within a bag of crisps. The object I think was to show that if you gave up the bag of crisps, that then helped with improving the calorie deficit in your diet, and by how much it improved it, if you were trying to lose weight - and how much exercise you would have to do to make it up if you went for the snackies. Fair enough.
We talked about HbA1c and very briefly touched on the target level of 6.5%. It was a bit superficial and we moved on quickly. Not so fast - hand up again - isn't HbA1c a bit of an average that hides damaging post-prandial spikes? Agreed that that was so. Isn't it sensible to test to determine what various foods do to your levels rather than just relying on your HbA1c? Again, agreed but 'testing's not for everyone and you might get confused by the readings'.
The dietary advice followed standard NHS guidelines - the healthy diet for diabetics is the same as the healthy diet for everyone else. Saturated fats are the devil's work to be avoided at all cost if your cholesterol level is not to be too high although it was acknowledged that dietary fat only contributes to a small extent and most is what's pumped out by your liver. Some salt avoidance techniques were mentioned which some might have found helpful. GI was mentioned obliquely without the actual term being used - rather, some carbs were described as acting slowly and others quickly. White bread was pointed out as a no-no, as was normal brown bread - the recommendation was for seeded granary bread. Portion control was mentioned but not in much detail. GL was not mentioned at all.
Complications were discussed - neuropathy, retinopathy and nephropathy - without those actual terms being used. The foot care advice was sensible and there was some good stuff on eyesight changes.
Driving advice was inaccurate - it was suggested that those on tablets should advise DVLA whereas this is only required for those on insulin control or with anything else that actually affects their driving performance. It was suggested we all inform our car Insurers of our diabetes but that it probably wouldn't affect our premiums - that has certainly been my experience.
Finally we talked about exercise. Be more active, no need to go to the gym if you don't want to. Personally I find the discipline and structure of gym exercise helpful but I see what they were getting at.
Overall, it was a bit too low key for my tastes and sugar coated to some extent (excuse the pun). The approach seems to be that a small change here and a small change there will make everything fine. There seems to be an assumption that most of us cannot understand the technical detail and we shouldn't be given it because we might get confused. For my part, I found that to get my BG and lipid levels under control involved quite radical changes to my diet and exercise levels combined with self-testing and I'm concerned that the attendees will have walked away with a less than perfect understanding of just what's required.
On a positive note however, when it was finished one of the attendees came up to me and asked me to explain what was involved in self-testing, which I was pleased to do.
Last edited:
Steff
Little Miss Chatterbox
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
Ahhh there you are Cliff i was looking at your thread last night wondering how you got on, it does sound very similier to the course i went on but mine was over 6 weeks, nice to see at the end you helping another attendee.At least you have been on a course and hopefully you feel a little bit more educated.
Northerner
Admin (Retired)
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
Thanks for that great account of the course Cliff - I'm sure it will be helpful to others wondering what these courses might involve and for comparison with their own education if they have received it.
Did you get an opportunity to provide feedback on both the good and bad points? It does sound to me as though they have structured the course aimed at the lowest ability level, and this can be unhelpful to those seeking a deeper level of understanding. Hopefully, after this primer and with your input raising topics they might not otherwise have heard of, they will seek out more in depth information. Like you, I don't agree with what appears to be a taboo of using the proper technical terms for the complications and things like GI.
I wonder if test strips were as cheap as chips then this notion that 'testing is not for everyone' would disappear? Some people might shy away from painful fngerpricks several times a day, but if the reality of potential complications was brought home to them maybe they'd understand that a little pain now is better than losing a foot or a kidney in the future. Did you recruit anyone to the forum?🙂
Did you get an opportunity to provide feedback on both the good and bad points? It does sound to me as though they have structured the course aimed at the lowest ability level, and this can be unhelpful to those seeking a deeper level of understanding. Hopefully, after this primer and with your input raising topics they might not otherwise have heard of, they will seek out more in depth information. Like you, I don't agree with what appears to be a taboo of using the proper technical terms for the complications and things like GI.
I wonder if test strips were as cheap as chips then this notion that 'testing is not for everyone' would disappear? Some people might shy away from painful fngerpricks several times a day, but if the reality of potential complications was brought home to them maybe they'd understand that a little pain now is better than losing a foot or a kidney in the future. Did you recruit anyone to the forum?🙂
Cliff
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
Yes, but only by means of a brief form which I had a couple of minutes at the end to fill in. At the end of the form there was room for comments and I added some remarks about my concern that the role of carbohydrates in raising BG levels could have been more fully explored.
I think that's absolutely right. I also think they under-estimate people's ability to take on board the technical stuff.
I've wondered the same thing, but I've always been an old cynic.
I regret I did not although the DUK website was mentioned so hopefully those who are prepared to look will find their way here eventually.
- Status