Re: Re: , your reply pt. 2

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/12/2004 8:10:16 AM Pacific Standard Time,

n7eoj@... writes:

I thought I was entering into the discussion, rather than hitting

a " stumbling block " . I am at fault for using the term " debating " .

I was asking for clarification or justification of the 45 & 80

g/meal " limits " relative to the 180g/day average I was told. What

are the sources? How did they arrive at those figures? I'm OK. I'm

operating midway between those extremes, but am curious how they are

derived.

Hi , as I explained last time, it is the normal " starting point " for a

diabetic, 45 grams of carbs for meals, 15 or 20 for a snack. This is changed

to a lower number if the person is very inactive or on a weight loss program.

I have a friend on another loop, who is a strong athlete, and is allowed even

more carbs because of his endurance training. Not many of us are like that

though ;-)

My observation about counting carbs is the same as doctors make about

counting calories. It is the total at the end of the day, or better,

the average over days relative to physical activity that matters, not

everytime you consume or consider consumption. Controlled portions

and physical activity relative to consumption is probably better

operational practice than counting individual carbs or calories.

, while I see you seem to work fine like this, for the average

diabetic, the dieticians would ratcher see 6 small meals (less than 45) than

even a

45 meal. This is less likely to give you a high BG reading. This actually does

woek, and your A1c is much better for it because it does not have the highs.

This is a Discussion group. Through Discussion we learn, update and

possibly discard obsolete or miss-information. This group currently

has 450 members. That's 450 different opinions on every topic. It

is human nature for each of us to believe we are experts on our

respective areas of interest. Some are more correct than others, but

all have reached that perception through some form of personal

inquiry and rationalization. Open Discussion helps us all re-

evaluate our internalized information.

I agree that discussion is good, it makes an interesting read, for all of us.

I don't think that too many of us are considered " experts " in the medical

field. But, we do know a lot about the disease we all study. It is important

to everyone, if they see something that they disagree with, they should raise

a question. I have no problem with this, I just think we should try to do it

from a positive position. Agreed?

>> Through friends that have coverage and therefore access to the

>> needed classes, I've been told to limit carb intake to 180g/day or

>> 60g/meal. I'm simultaneously told it is better to eat 4-6 times a

>> day rather than the old standard " 3 meals a day " . On here, I see

>> lively discussion debating " limits " between 45-80g/meal.

>> It gets confusing. It seems to me, a daily " limit " or average

>> would make more sense and be easier to live with.

> , does it make the term " stumbling block " come to mind? :-)

Those " stumbling blocks " motivate me to search for answers consistant

with logic and some kind of disciplined inquiry. The Internet is

full of self-proclaimed experts with a wide range of facts on every

topic. Passive acceptance of anything read, especially on the

Internet, is dangerous.

I absolutely agree. I also agree if you tell diabetics they can habe 80

carbs at a meal, they are going to be in real trouble. Just like saying to

them,

here is your limit, do it anyway you want. This may work with a weight

watcher like program, but it willnot and cannot work for a diabetic.

> This is exactly what I feared. When you come out and say things

> that are in complete opposition to what they are learning, you

> throw them off. It is a sad disservice to humanity dear friend!;-)

It is sadder disservice to humanity to force passive acceptance of a

righid single point of view without active inquiry. All of

scientific discovery is based on questioning and testing established

facts. Over time the majority of facts are improved upon through

this process. This is a service to humanity.

I am not in the habit of forcing passive acceptance on anyone. I just made

the point your theory is dangerous and needs to be corrected, before it causes

damage.

> I hope this has shown you if you want to debate, do it off list

> where it does not throw a monkey wrench into their thought

> patterns.

Does this imply that all information presented in this Discussion

group is absolute fact and there should be no public discussion or

debate regarding sources and contradictory scientific findings?

If so, this should be a Newsletter rather than Discussion group.

What qualifies the expert facts to be presented?

You will have to seek that from , it is his group. I just know as far

as I am concerned, it is important to correct misconseptions.

Passive acceptance of any source of information is a monkey wrench in

one's thinking process. It is easy and mandatory for us to check the

facts stated by anyone and decide whether they are valid.

The only problem , is, that many people will just accept this as true,

simply because they read it. If you see something that is wrong, it can be

challenged for corectness, right?

My Discussion groups are just that. Only if the Discussion goes

tangentially off topic or too emotionally charged, do I suggest they

take it offline.

This is what I am concerned about, also.

This is the most informative, positive, friendly, comfortable group

I've encountered on this topic. I'm glad I found it. My thanks to

all that have put the time, effort and interest into making it that

way.

I hope it continues to have an unimpeded flow of good, valid

information...and recipes!

See, we finally found something to agree on! Hugs, Marilyn

Marilyn

Moderator for

Diabetic_Recipes

dnevessr@...

Opinions expressed are solely

my own and should not be

mistaken for

Professional advice.