[deafmack]

You guys who've been here the longest already know this stuff, but I figured I would post it for the newbies to the disease and to the forum. It's an article about the ADA and their acceptance of funds from junk food companies, and my favorite part is the top "science" guy at the ADA saying that sugar has "nothing to do" with diabetes.

I have my second diabetes class on Saturday - the "nutrition" class - and I plan to print this article and pass it out to the class in front of the instructor. I'll probably have to stay after class and clap erasers as punishment!

American Diabetes Association peddling nutritional nonsense while accepting money from manufacturer of candy and sodas

Well the name is only going on the diet products and not on the regular products so let's not take things out of context. And if the JDRF can put their name on products why can't the ADA to raise money? While I agree that processed foods are not healthy for anyone for some people that is all that is available. I do agree that healthy eating habits begin in the home however and that jcandy and pop machines shouldn't be allowed in schools.

 

[deafmack]

The thing about funding is, it can create additional obligations on the side. And I think many of us can see evidence for that in our insurance policies. So knowing the source is vital info for our own assessment.

Just had my Diabetes Basics class. First time I'd been a physical space full of Type 2s. It was a large class.

Most were newbies. A couple of folks had been diagnosed years ago, but wanted updated info, and/or had just started taking The D seriously.

Aside from the lone Type 1, I was the only attendee on insulin (folks gasped when I said that -- oops). I'd guess about 1/4-1/3 of us knew how to use a meter.

Of course, the instructor taught to the ADA Guidelines. It's clear my hospital plan requires it.

I decided to sit back and observe. Only thing I said was that the ADA guidelines do not work for me. The instructor was sympathetic, and suggested I look into the glycemic index.

Some impressions (and some conclusions):

-- ADA guidelines are a bit complex but, psychologically speaking, easy to teach to overwhelmed newbies.

-- ADA's recommended blood levels are, well, appalling. Post-prandial of up to 180, anyone?
(For some of us, that's the most realistic goal ... to begin with. But not for long. A schedule of descending goals would be far healthier.)

-- The ADA diet's a pretty healthy one for non-Ds. Maybe it works for an unknown number of Ds, too. But for so many of us -- NO.
(But it may work as a "Starter Diet," or as one of several diet options geared toward individual goals.)

-- One barrier to offering real options and individualized care is that, like everyone else, health providers are cutting their budgets. Follow-up and education get chopped. Ultimately, it's the patients who pay the price.

What I really object to is the pushing of ADA Guidelines as the sole authority. Personally, however, I've found my own medical team supports me doing my thing, as long as they are assured I know what I'm doing.

But not all patients have An Attitude. Heck, I wouldn't have one, were it not for a sudden hospital stay, horrific numbers and a host of nagging symptoms.

Granted, An Attitude always helps. But ... it should never be required for adequate care.

My diabetes class must have been rare because they told me to not be above 140 after a meal and then they said to look for no more than a 40 point rise max and that is what I started with. Of course there was a good mix of people with type 1 and type 2 and type 1.5 and other causes of diabetes such as missing pancreases, etc. I think any class is a good starting place though. Then if the person is able they can either come here or some other diabetes forum to learnr more and grow. A person has to start somewhere right?