Thread: Eat those Carbs! The ADA says you should!!

x-no-archive: yes

On 10/27/2011 10:25 AM, Janet wrote:
> Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: " restricting total
> carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not recommended. In
> addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary sugar
> (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories. That means
> people with diabetes can have a limited amount of sweets, chocolates and
> desserts as part of a healthy meal plan."
>
> Read it here:
> http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001
>
> I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of ethics I
> expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of course, it is really
> "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their "brands.")
>
>

Yes, the ADA used to have a statement on their site, "eat more starches,
they're good for you!"

The sugar and grain lobbies wallets (along with pharma's) are wide open
to them.

Susan

"Janet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: " restricting
> total carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not recommended.
> In addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary sugar
> (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories. That means
> people with diabetes can have a limited amount of sweets, chocolates and
> desserts as part of a healthy meal plan."
>
> Read it here:
> http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001
>
> I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of ethics I
> expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of course, it is
> really "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their
> "brands.")

That's nothing new!

"Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 10/27/2011 10:25 AM, Janet wrote:
>> Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: " restricting
>> total
>> carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not recommended. In
>> addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary sugar
>> (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories. That means
>> people with diabetes can have a limited amount of sweets, chocolates and
>> desserts as part of a healthy meal plan."
>>
>> Read it here:
>> http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001
>>
>> I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of ethics I
>> expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of course, it is
>> really
>> "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their "brands.")
>>
>>
>
> Yes, the ADA used to have a statement on their site, "eat more starches,
> they're good for you!"
>
> The sugar and grain lobbies wallets (along with pharma's) are wide open to
> them.

Used to but don't know. Get over it!

Julie Bove <[email protected]> wrote:

: "Janet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]..
: > Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: " restricting
: > total carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not recommended.
: > In addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary sugar
: > (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories. That means
: > people with diabetes can have a limited amount of sweets, chocolates and
: > desserts as part of a healthy meal plan."
: >
: > Read it here:
: > http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001
: >
: > I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of ethics I
: > expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of course, it is
: > really "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their
: > "brands.")

: That's nothing new!
For many of us it is, at least the Remedy Health Services part.

Wendy

"W. Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:j8cgpr$pb0$[email protected]..
> Julie Bove <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : "Janet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : news:[email protected]..
> : > Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: " restricting
> : > total carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not
> recommended.
> : > In addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary
> sugar
> : > (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories. That
> means
> : > people with diabetes can have a limited amount of sweets, chocolates
> and
> : > desserts as part of a healthy meal plan."
> : >
> : > Read it here:
> : >
> http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001
> : >
> : > I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of
> ethics I
> : > expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of course, it is
> : > really "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their
> : > "brands.")
>
> : That's nothing new!
> For many of us it is, at least the Remedy Health Services part.

No, no. I mean the advice!

Should have emailed them with your thoughts. If more people provide
feedback as to their experiences with more carbs re control then maybe,
just maybe, someone might notice. As you can probably tell I am not one
to just accept things My local MP etc must be quite sick of me, lol.
But seriously, a squeaky door gets oiled. I like to think that my
opinions of government policy eventually get heard. Perhaps the same
could happen here. Unsubbing to me is like killfiling. You can't know
what else comes out of there. Make a stand! I won't use that "occupy"
word - shudder

"Janet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: " restricting
> total carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not
> recommended. In addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for
> ordinary sugar (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total
> calories. That means people with diabetes can have a limited amount of
> sweets, chocolates and desserts as part of a healthy meal plan."
>
> Read it here:
> http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001
>
> I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of
> ethics I expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of
> course, it is really "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one
> of their "brands.")
>

Ozgirl wrote:
> Should have emailed them with your thoughts. If more people provide
> feedback as to their experiences with more carbs re control then
> maybe, just maybe, someone might notice. As you can probably tell I
> am not one to just accept things My local MP etc must be quite
> sick of me, lol. But seriously, a squeaky door gets oiled. I like to
> think that my opinions of government policy eventually get heard.
> Perhaps the same could happen here. Unsubbing to me is like
> killfiling. You can't know what else comes out of there. Make a
> stand! I won't use that "occupy" word - shudder

I actually did call their customer service line and register a vociferous
complaint. They carefully do NOT provide a comment forum or email address
where you can register a comment. I am angry enough about it to track down
someone via the JHU website, and will probably do so in the next few days.
(I actually have some connection to JHU, albeit a different branch of the
university.)

Julie Bove wrote:
> "Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> On 10/27/2011 10:25 AM, Janet wrote:
>>> Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: "
>>> restricting total
>>> carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not recommended.
>>> In addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary
>>> sugar (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories.
>>> That means people with diabetes can have a limited amount of
>>> sweets, chocolates and desserts as part of a healthy meal plan."
>>>
>>> Read it here:
>>> http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001
>>>
>>> I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of
>>> ethics I expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of
>>> course, it is really
>>> "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their "brands.")
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the ADA used to have a statement on their site, "eat more
>> starches, they're good for you!"
>>
>> The sugar and grain lobbies wallets (along with pharma's) are wide
>> open to them.
>
> Used to but don't know. Get over it!

Obviously, they are advising it NOW or these people would not be quoting
them as doing so. Engaging in a certain amount of back pedalling and
doubletalk does not, IMHO absolve the ADA of putting forth advice that kills
diabetics.

"Janet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> Julie Bove wrote:
>> "Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]..
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>
>>> On 10/27/2011 10:25 AM, Janet wrote:
>>>> Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: "
>>>> restricting total
>>>> carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not recommended.
>>>> In addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary
>>>> sugar (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories.
>>>> That means people with diabetes can have a limited amount of
>>>> sweets, chocolates and desserts as part of a healthy meal plan."
>>>>
>>>> Read it here:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of
>>>> ethics I expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of
>>>> course, it is really
>>>> "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their
>>>> "brands.")
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the ADA used to have a statement on their site, "eat more
>>> starches, they're good for you!"
>>>
>>> The sugar and grain lobbies wallets (along with pharma's) are wide
>>> open to them.
>>
>> Used to but don't know. Get over it!
>
> Obviously, they are advising it NOW or these people would not be
> quoting them as doing so. Engaging in a certain amount of back
> pedalling and doubletalk does not, IMHO absolve the ADA of putting
> forth advice that kills diabetics.

It wouldn't be the first time an institution gives out advice saying its
an ADA recommendation. Sometimes its because they used outdated
information, othertimes, well perhaps they lie

This is what the ADA actually says:

"If you have diabetes, it doesn't mean you will never have birthday cake
or pumpkin pie again. *****With a little planning*****, you can have a
****small serving**** of your favorite dessert.*******It's best to save
the sweets for special occasions so you don't miss out on the more
nutritious foods your body needs*******." Using the ADA's name in an
article saying "some experts" is rather misleading.

As to carbs in general;

"People with diabetes looking for a one-size-fits-all "right" way to eat
are going to come up short. There probably is no one way to eat that
works for everyone. For some, all but nixing carbs is the ideal way to
normalize blood glucose levels. For others, eating a higher-carb diet
and covering the carbs with insulin or oral medications wins. This is
all part of the reason that the American Diabetes Association stresses
that meal plans should be geared to fit each person's individual
lifestyle."

"Janet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> Julie Bove wrote:
>> "Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]..
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>
>>> On 10/27/2011 10:25 AM, Janet wrote:
>>>> Just recieved the latest Johns Hopkins alert. Newsflash: "
>>>> restricting total
>>>> carbohydrate intake to less than 130 g per day is not recommended.
>>>> In addition, some experts have relaxed the allowance for ordinary
>>>> sugar (sucrose) intake to as much as 10 percent of total calories.
>>>> That means people with diabetes can have a limited amount of
>>>> sweets, chocolates and desserts as part of a healthy meal plan."
>>>>
>>>> Read it here:
>>>> http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts....ECH_111027_001
>>>>
>>>> I have unsubscribed from their service. This is not the level of
>>>> ethics I expect from an institution like Johns Hopkins. (But of
>>>> course, it is really
>>>> "Remedy Health Services" and Hopkins is just one of their "brands.")
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the ADA used to have a statement on their site, "eat more
>>> starches, they're good for you!"
>>>
>>> The sugar and grain lobbies wallets (along with pharma's) are wide
>>> open to them.
>>
>> Used to but don't know. Get over it!
>
> Obviously, they are advising it NOW or these people would not be quoting
> them as doing so. Engaging in a certain amount of back pedalling and
> doubletalk does not, IMHO absolve the ADA of putting forth advice that
> kills diabetics.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? They didn't say to eat more
carbs.

On 10/27/2011 5:39 PM, Janet wrote:
> Ozgirl wrote:
>> Should have emailed them with your thoughts. If more people provide
>> feedback as to their experiences with more carbs re control then
>> maybe, just maybe, someone might notice. As you can probably tell I
>> am not one to just accept things My local MP etc must be quite
>> sick of me, lol. But seriously, a squeaky door gets oiled. I like to
>> think that my opinions of government policy eventually get heard.
>> Perhaps the same could happen here. Unsubbing to me is like
>> killfiling. You can't know what else comes out of there. Make a
>> stand! I won't use that "occupy" word - shudder
>
> I actually did call their customer service line and register a vociferous
> complaint. They carefully do NOT provide a comment forum or email address
> where you can register a comment. I am angry enough about it to track down
> someone via the JHU website, and will probably do so in the next few days.
> (I actually have some connection to JHU, albeit a different branch of the
> university.)
>
>
but they know names..........

networking is great

k

Julie Bove wrote:


> Do you have a reading comprehension problem? They didn't say to eat
> more carbs.

There is no need to be rude, Julie. My reading comprehension is just fine.
Perhaps if you think a bit more about the implications of what was said you
will get my point.

As far as quoting the ADA website is concerned, it's like the bible: you can
find something there to prove virtually anything you want. It is obviously
designed for maximum deniability. For the real message, I suggest reading
the page[s] where they talk about "tight control." How they define it, and
the degree of danger they ascribe to it, and so forth.

"Janet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> Julie Bove wrote:
>
>
>> Do you have a reading comprehension problem? They didn't say to eat
>> more carbs.
>
> There is no need to be rude, Julie. My reading comprehension is just
> fine. Perhaps if you think a bit more about the implications of what was
> said you will get my point.
>
> As far as quoting the ADA website is concerned, it's like the bible: you
> can find something there to prove virtually anything you want. It is
> obviously designed for maximum deniability. For the real message, I
> suggest reading the page[s] where they talk about "tight control." How
> they define it, and the degree of danger they ascribe to it, and so forth.

It's not like the bible to me! To me the bible is merely a meaningless
book. I'm an atheist!

I don't need to reread anything. The OP said to eat *more* carbs. I'm sure
it didn't say that at all.

Julie Bove wrote:
> "Janet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Do you have a reading comprehension problem? They didn't say to eat
>>> more carbs.
>>
>> There is no need to be rude, Julie. My reading comprehension is just
>> fine. Perhaps if you think a bit more about the implications of what
>> was said you will get my point.
>>
>> As far as quoting the ADA website is concerned, it's like the bible:
>> you can find something there to prove virtually anything you want.
>> It is obviously designed for maximum deniability. For the real
>> message, I suggest reading the page[s] where they talk about "tight
>> control." How they define it, and the degree of danger they ascribe
>> to it, and so forth.
>
> It's not like the bible to me! To me the bible is merely a
> meaningless book. I'm an atheist!
>
> I don't need to reread anything. The OP said to eat *more* carbs. I'm
> sure it didn't say that at all.

I don't "believe in" the bible in any religious way either, Julie. That is
not the point. The point is that, like the pronouncements of the ADA on
their website, it is frequently cited as an authority to support someone's
opinion. And because of the way it is written, you can find justification
for almost any course of action there if you wish. Ozgirl quoted from one
part of it--I assume that's where she got that text, anyway--and I suggested
that she go look at another part of it, which says something quite
different.

Since you insist on being literal minded to a degree that doesn't admit the
existence of metaphor or simile, I suggest you go back and reread my posts.
Then show me where I said "more." In fact, a simple glimpse at the thread
title will tell you that I used the word "those."

The article from Remedy, puporting to be from JHU, quotes various
authorities in stating that it is dangerous to go below 130 gms of carb per
day in the long term. I would venture to guess that would mean that the vast
majority of T2 diabetics who are controlling their HBA1C below 6 using diet,
exercise, and perhaps metformin, would indeed have to eat significantly more
carbs to meet their recomendation. It certainly would mean that for me.

But frankly, I think the ultimate goal of Remedy Health Systems and big
pharma and all of the medical industrial establishment is to make big $$.
And one of the best ways to do that is to push T2s on to expensive
medications. They aren't going to make big $$ if T2s control their BGs
without taking all of those expensive drugs that, according to studies,
perform no better than the cheap generic: metformin.

"Janet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> Julie Bove wrote:
>> "Janet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]..
>>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Do you have a reading comprehension problem? They didn't say to eat
>>>> more carbs.
>>>
>>> There is no need to be rude, Julie. My reading comprehension is just
>>> fine. Perhaps if you think a bit more about the implications of what
>>> was said you will get my point.
>>>
>>> As far as quoting the ADA website is concerned, it's like the bible:
>>> you can find something there to prove virtually anything you want.
>>> It is obviously designed for maximum deniability. For the real
>>> message, I suggest reading the page[s] where they talk about "tight
>>> control." How they define it, and the degree of danger they ascribe
>>> to it, and so forth.
>>
>> It's not like the bible to me! To me the bible is merely a
>> meaningless book. I'm an atheist!
>>
>> I don't need to reread anything. The OP said to eat *more* carbs. I'm
>> sure it didn't say that at all.
>
> I don't "believe in" the bible in any religious way either, Julie. That
> is not the point. The point is that, like the pronouncements of the ADA on
> their website, it is frequently cited as an authority to support someone's
> opinion. And because of the way it is written, you can find justification
> for almost any course of action there if you wish. Ozgirl quoted from one
> part of it--I assume that's where she got that text, anyway--and I
> suggested that she go look at another part of it, which says something
> quite different.
>
> Since you insist on being literal minded to a degree that doesn't admit
> the existence of metaphor or simile, I suggest you go back and reread my
> posts. Then show me where I said "more." In fact, a simple glimpse at the
> thread title will tell you that I used the word "those."
>
> The article from Remedy, puporting to be from JHU, quotes various
> authorities in stating that it is dangerous to go below 130 gms of carb
> per day in the long term. I would venture to guess that would mean that
> the vast majority of T2 diabetics who are controlling their HBA1C below 6
> using diet, exercise, and perhaps metformin, would indeed have to eat
> significantly more carbs to meet their recomendation. It certainly would
> mean that for me.
>
> But frankly, I think the ultimate goal of Remedy Health Systems and big
> pharma and all of the medical industrial establishment is to make big $$.
> And one of the best ways to do that is to push T2s on to expensive
> medications. They aren't going to make big $$ if T2s control their BGs
> without taking all of those expensive drugs that, according to studies,
> perform no better than the cheap generic: metformin.

I didn't say you said it. I said the OP. Were you the OP? This has gone
on for so long now I can't remember who said what.

On 10/29/2011 8:20 AM, Janet wrote:
> Julie Bove wrote:
>> "Janet"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]..
>>> Julie Bove wrote:
[snip]
> Julie Bove wrote:
>> "Janet"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]..
>>> Julie Bove wrote:
[snip]
> I don't "believe in" the bible in any religious way either, Julie. That is
> not the point. The point is that, like the pronouncements of the ADA on
> their website, it is frequently cited as an authority to support someone's
> opinion. And because of the way it is written, you can find justification
> for almost any course of action there if you wish. Ozgirl quoted from one
> part of it--I assume that's where she got that text, anyway--and I suggested
> that she go look at another part of it, which says something quite
> different.

The ADA website USED to say that about 130 g of carbs a day
was required to supply the needs of the brain, back in the
days when they assumed that because the low-fat, no-sugar
diet worked somewhat for controlling diabetes, no funding
for any research to check if a low-carb diet worked better
was useful.

Since then, research funded elsewhere has shown that most
of the brain can switch to using fats for its energy, but
not all of it, and the liver can convert proteins into
glucose more than fast enough to supply the portions of
the brain that can't switch over.

The ADA is now SLOWLY moving toward accepting low-carb
diets as an alternative, but hasn't reached the point of
recommending it yet - except on their users forum, where
more users recommend it than those that recommend the
older diet.

Robert Miles

Julie Bove wrote:

<snip>

> I didn't say you said it. I said the OP. Were you the OP? This has
> gone on for so long now I can't remember who said what.

I was the OP. I didn't say it. And the entire thread had a total of 17 posts
when I just checked. Doesn't seem so terribly long to me...

x-no-archive: yes

On 10/31/2011 2:10 PM, Janet wrote:
> Julie Bove wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I didn't say you said it. I said the OP. Were you the OP? This has
>> gone on for so long now I can't remember who said what.
>
> I was the OP. I didn't say it. And the entire thread had a total of 17 posts
> when I just checked. Doesn't seem so terribly long to me...
>
>

We used to be able to keep these inane pissing matches on asd, where
they belong. ;-)

Got any new recipes?

Susan

"Janet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> Julie Bove wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I didn't say you said it. I said the OP. Were you the OP? This has
>> gone on for so long now I can't remember who said what.
>
> I was the OP. I didn't say it. And the entire thread had a total of 17
> posts when I just checked. Doesn't seem so terribly long to me...

You said "Eat Those Carbs!" And I know somebody said they said to eat more
carbs.