Guest guest Posted October 7, 2006 Report Posted October 7, 2006 Sorry , didn't mean it that way or specifically to you. I have to deal with my doctor's dieticians on a routine basis and they can make me nuts over things. You would not believe the things they allow Type 1 kids to eat. They have the perfect opportunity to teach people about nutrition and most of them don't use it. A couple of decades ago, you never saw a heavy Type 1 diabetic, they were always thin, nowadays it's common for a Type 1 diabetic to be overweight. That's because they are allowed and even encouraged to eat the SAD. Linn On Oct 7, 2006, at 11:24 AM, C. Mannelli, Ed.D. wrote: > P.S. My post was not to give the total picture as you mention. But > to bring > up the 'tool' of glycemic index. > > -- Re: HC Efftects > > That's part of the problem with how they look at things. The apple > is tremendously better for your body nutrionally and for your blood > sugar. I'm very familiar with the glycemic index and although it can > be a useful tool, the implication that states an apple is not much > better than pure processed sugar is just plain crap. Your body can > utilize everything from the apple, there is absolutely no benefit > whatsoever from eating processed sugar. It is a totally useless, in > fact detrimental thing to put in your body. It's comparable to how > people say on the thyroid forums that docs are looking at black marks > on a piece of paper. The glycemic index is a tool, not the total > picture. Diabetes is a lot like thyroid in that doctors and the > medical establishment, including the ADA and most diabetes > organizations know little to nothing about nutrition and with > diabetes, nutrition is the major factor. Type 2 diabetes was unheard > of until sugar processing hit the scene. Diabetes is BIG business > and so is the food industry, they both feed off of each other. All > the medical establishment is interested in doing is treating what > they see as a chronic disease, they have no vested interest in > telling you how to cure it. Type 2 diabetes is usually reversible if > found early enough. > > Linn > > . > > Quote
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2006 Report Posted October 7, 2006 Linn: I have never like the cavalier attitude many in the treatment of diabetes, have towards diet. I cannot tell you how many times kids passed out after running and sweating in the Texas sun at camp in Kerrville. One child I had to constantly follow, dropped down daily and had to have IVs with dex to wake her up. Now had her morning insulin been reduced because of the anticipated daily sports activities at camp, fewer would have gotten low so quickly. Pitifully, parents gave us the doctor's prescription for insulin and the child really had no knowlege or control over how much was injected. We also had test kid's blood sugar in the middle of the night (midnight checks) and if low, the diet given was ice cream with graham crackers!! Sometimes peanut butter was used but cashew butter or almond butter would have been better since anyone can be allergic to peanuts more so than almonds. But ice cream and graham crackers??? I realize there are some complex carbos in there but none will last the night. I am sure the ice cream was to add fat but there is just as much carbo as fat in ice cream with the added sugar. Another midnight snack was an ice cream sandwich. Way too much sugar. And right, I never saw an overweight Type 1 kid. -- Re: HC Efftects > > That's part of the problem with how they look at things. The apple > is tremendously better for your body nutrionally and for your blood > sugar. I'm very familiar with the glycemic index and although it can > be a useful tool, the implication that states an apple is not much > better than pure processed sugar is just plain crap. Your body can > utilize everything from the apple, there is absolutely no benefit > whatsoever from eating processed sugar. It is a totally useless, in > fact detrimental thing to put in your body. It's comparable to how > people say on the thyroid forums that docs are looking at black marks > on a piece of paper. The glycemic index is a tool, not the total > picture. Diabetes is a lot like thyroid in that doctors and the > medical establishment, including the ADA and most diabetes > organizations know little to nothing about nutrition and with > diabetes, nutrition is the major factor. Type 2 diabetes was unheard > of until sugar processing hit the scene. Diabetes is BIG business > and so is the food industry, they both feed off of each other. All > the medical establishment is interested in doing is treating what > they see as a chronic disease, they have no vested interest in > telling you how to cure it. Type 2 diabetes is usually reversible if > found early enough. > > Linn > > . > > Quote
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2006 Report Posted October 8, 2006 Linn, how hard did you have to fight your insurance to get the pump for your daughter, if at all? My husband has been having difficulty with his sugar spiking, and he feels that he would do better on the pump. However, since he's in the top 1% in terms of controlling his sugar - because he's med-compliant, exercises & eats well, his endo says he should try to avoid insulin at all costs. He's already using byetta. Then the new endo wants to put him on Actos to control the spikes, and the old endo said it was deadly for the liver. Who knows... I had a friend who was on 6 insulin shots a day and had to jump though all manner of hoops to get insurance to pay for the pump, so I'm concerned about that. > > > Linn: > > > > I have never like the cavalier attitude many in the treatment of > > diabetes, > > have towards diet. I cannot tell you how many times kids passed out > > after > > running and sweating in the Texas sun at camp in Kerrville. One > > child I had > > to constantly follow, dropped down daily and had to have IVs with > > dex to > > wake her up. Now had her morning insulin been reduced because of the > > anticipated daily sports activities at camp, fewer would have > > gotten low so > > quickly. Pitifully, parents gave us the doctor's prescription for > > insulin > > and the child really had no knowlege or control over how much was > > injected. > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > Quote
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2006 Report Posted October 8, 2006 We didn't have to fight at all. They usually put Type 1's on a pump because statistically it gives a better control. They normally do make them wait 6 months to a year to check to see how compliant the patient is going to be. The main requisite is that you must be willing to check your blood sugar on a very regular basis, between 4 - 8 times a day, and more if illness sets in. I'm sure it would depend on your insurance also if you're a Type 2. Pumps are very expensive. My daughter's was $7,000. It's ridiculous. What kind of spiking is he having? I'd almost be more leery of using oral meds than insulin. A lot of Type 2 diabetics use long acting insulin as a basal amount and then are able to control their blood sugar with diet and exercise. There are side effects with all the oral meds, some of them are very serious and they've had to pull some off the market due to deaths from liver damage. A lot of doctors are too quick to put people on meds, without trying diet and exercise first. That's kind of odd to have to take 6 insulin shots a day, unless the person was only on short acting insulin and having to do shots every time they ate something, unless they were insulin resistant. I think that's one of the reasons they hesitate with Type 2's. If one is insulin resistant, even the shots aren't going to work and it can be lead to dangerous consequences. Here's some info on the oral meds. Personally I wouldn't take any of these without reading all the fine print. • Oral hypoglycaemic agents In 1955, oral hypoglycaemic drugs were introduced. Currently available oral hypoglycaemic agents fall into five classifications according to their biophysical mode of action.19 These classes are: biguanides; glucosidase inhibitors; meglitinides; sulphonylureas; and thiazolidinediones. The biguanides lower blood sugar in three ways. They inhibit the normal release by the liver of its glucose stores, they interfere with intestinal absorption of glucose from ingested carbohydrates, and they are said to increase peripheral uptake of glucose. The glucosidase inhibitors are designed to inhibit the amylase enzymes produced by the pancreas and which are essential to the digestion of carbohydrates. The theory is that if the digestion of carbohydrates is inhibited, the blood sugar level cannot be elevated. The meglitinides are designed to stimulate the pancreas to produce insulin in a patient that likely already has an elevated level of insulin in their bloodstream. Only rarely does the doctor even measure the insulin level. Indeed, these drugs are frequently prescribed without any knowledge of the pre-existing insulin level. The fact that an elevated insulin level is almost as damaging as an elevated glucose level is widely ignored. The sulphonylureas are another pancreatic stimulant class designed to stimulate the production of insulin. Serum insulin determinations are rarely made by the doctor before he prescribes these drugs. They are often prescribed for Type II diabetics, many of whom already have elevated ineffective insulin. These drugs are notorious for causing hypoglycaemia as a side effect. The thiazolidinediones are famous for causing liver cancer. One of them, Rezulin, was approved in the USA through devious political infighting, but failed to get approval in the UK because it was known to cause liver cancer. The doctor who had responsibility to approve it at the FDA refused to do so. It was only after he was replaced by a more compliant official that Rezulin gained approval by the FDA. It went on to kill well over 100 diabetes patients and cripple many others before the fight to get it off the market was finally won. Rezulin was designed to stimulate the uptake of glucose from the bloodstream by the peripheral cells and to inhibit the normal secretion of glucose by the liver. The politics of why this drug ever came onto market, and then remained in the market for such an unexplainable length of time with regulatory agency approval, is not clear.20 As of April 2000, lawsuits commenced to clarify this situation.21 Linn > Linn, how hard did you have to fight your insurance to get the pump > for your daughter, if at all? > > My husband has been having difficulty with his sugar spiking, and he > feels that he would do better on the pump. However, since he's in the > top 1% in terms of controlling his sugar - because he's med-compliant, > exercises & eats well, his endo says he should try to avoid insulin at > all costs. He's already using byetta. Then the new endo wants to > put him on Actos to control the spikes, and the old endo said it was > deadly for the liver. Who knows... > > I had a friend who was on 6 insulin shots a day and had to jump though > all manner of hoops to get insurance to pay for the pump, so I'm > concerned about that. > > > > . > > Quote
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2006 Report Posted October 8, 2006 > > > Linn, how hard did you have to fight your insurance to get the pump > > for your daughter, if at all? > > > > My husband has been having difficulty with his sugar spiking, and he > > feels that he would do better on the pump. However, since he's in the > > top 1% in terms of controlling his sugar - because he's med-compliant, > > exercises & eats well, his endo says he should try to avoid insulin at > > all costs. He's already using byetta. Then the new endo wants to > > put him on Actos to control the spikes, and the old endo said it was > > deadly for the liver. Who knows... > > > > I had a friend who was on 6 insulin shots a day and had to jump though > > all manner of hoops to get insurance to pay for the pump, so I'm > > concerned about that. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.