Diabetes Diet Semantics Discussion Thread

"Roger Zoul" writes:

As one who has had diabetes for 26 years, I know I'm not cured, but
I live with good control.

I tend to agree, but I can see the usefulness of the other side of the
argument.

If you eat arsenic, you will be afflicted with headaches,
lightheadedness, vomiting, and a couple dozen other symptoms,
including eventual death. If you stop eating arsenic, and those
symptoms go away, have you "cured" them? Obviously, if you start
eating arsenic again, they will come back, so does that mean you are
only "controlling" your susceptibility to arsenic poisoning by
restricting your intake?

I think that points out why people are resistant to the "control"
attitude. No one would ever say he was "controlling" his arsenic
poisoning by restricting it from his diet, because we don't think of
arsenic as a food that you should normally eat. By talking about
controlling diabetes, I think there's a certain amount of assumption
there that eating diabetes-causing or -worsening foods is *normal*,
and therefore we're doing something out of the ordinary by restricting
them.

Obviously, there's another difference -- arsenic will give anyone
arsenic poisoning, while carbs will not give every human diabetes (at
least not within each person's lifespan, although I suspect that if
everyone lived long enough and ate enough grain and sugar, it would
become near universal).

Anyway, I don't see it so much as an argument with a right or wrong
answer, once you get away from the semantics. I see it as a situation
where a different attitude works for different people. The AA, "I'll
always have this problem so I must maintain eternal vigilance"
approach works for some people, but not others. Some people might be
better off with a "Heck with vigilance; I should never even *want* to
eat that poison!" attitude.



--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."

Aaron Baugher wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" writes:
::
::: As one who has had diabetes for 26 years, I know I'm not cured, but
::: I live with good control.
::
:: I tend to agree, but I can see the usefulness of the other side of
:: the argument.
::

I can't.

:: If you eat arsenic, you will be afflicted with headaches,
:: lightheadedness, vomiting, and a couple dozen other symptoms,
:: including eventual death. If you stop eating arsenic, and those
:: symptoms go away, have you "cured" them? Obviously, if you start
:: eating arsenic again, they will come back, so does that mean you are
:: only "controlling" your susceptibility to arsenic poisoning by
:: restricting your intake?

As you mention below, eating arsenic is not the same as having a disease.

::
:: I think that points out why people are resistant to the "control"
:: attitude. No one would ever say he was "controlling" his arsenic
:: poisoning by restricting it from his diet, because we don't think of
:: arsenic as a food that you should normally eat.

But that is essentially what's happening.

By talking about
:: controlling diabetes, I think there's a certain amount of assumption
:: there that eating diabetes-causing or -worsening foods is *normal*,
:: and therefore we're doing something out of the ordinary by
:: restricting them.

Well, aren't we? Most of the population in the country I live in eats a
diet way high in carbs.

::
:: Obviously, there's another difference -- arsenic will give anyone
:: arsenic poisoning, while carbs will not give every human diabetes (at
:: least not within each person's lifespan, although I suspect that if
:: everyone lived long enough and ate enough grain and sugar, it would
:: become near universal).
::

That's not clear, IMO. Many claim that eating grain and sugar isn't the
cause of diabetes. They would say it's some genetic defect. I don't know.

:: Anyway, I don't see it so much as an argument with a right or wrong
:: answer, once you get away from the semantics.

People talk about semantics as though it's just simply a matter of tossing
around words. I think that words do definite clear meanings. If I'm cured,
then I should be able to eat and behave just as a normal person would. Since
I can't, how can I be cured? What is the meaning of being a type 2
diabetic? Well, IMO, that is more directly related to how your body can
handle the glucose it gets, not about whether you're diagnosed or what your
A1C numbers are like. A person with good control can fall under the radar on
typical tests, but that doesn't remove the underlying problem or malfunction
within the body to metabolize carbohydrate. As long as that's present, then
one cannot be called cured, IMO. Find a way to fix that, and you've
developed a cure. I would welcome that over having good control any day.
IMO, there is no question here about semantics - it's clear cut.

:: I see it as a
:: situation where a different attitude works for different people.
:: The AA, "I'll always have this problem so I must maintain eternal
:: vigilance" approach works for some people, but not others. Some
:: people might be better off with a "Heck with vigilance; I should
:: never even *want* to eat that poison!" attitude.

A cure works for anyone. Attitude would have nothing to do with it. If
someone saying they are cured make them feel good, fine. I don't have a
problem with people thinking what they want to feel good. However, there is
a big danger with spreading information this way. Obviously, since different
attitudes work for different people, misconceptions can result in serious
problems for those who adopt notions without having the right attitude to go
along with the notion. If a person thinks that just getting good fasting
and A1C numbers means he/she is cured, then what happens when this person
starts eating whatever? As a diabetic who's seen lots of his relatives die
terribly, I'm not one to stand around and let people pass off flawed deadly
notions. After all, we'll all free to post our opinions & thoughts on
usenet. So, when others post what I consider to be bad info, I'll respond --
if I wish. I have to tell you though, I get the impression that those who
use the word "cured" concerning T2D are always those who don't live with the
disease.

On Feb 25, 2:32 pm, "Bob in CT" wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:40:15 -0500, Roger Zoul
wrote:

wrote:
.
::
:: What we ought to agree on is that cutting refined and high-GI load
:: carbs from the diet at the earliest possible time can only improve
:: ones glyceamic controll and minimize the damage already done.
::
:: TC

I doubt you'd get much (if any) argument from me if you said that!

The only argument from me is that perhaps one could use glycemic load in
addition to glycemic index. For instance, although watermelon has
high-GI, it has low glycemic load (heck, it's mainly water). Assuming you
don't gorge yourself on watermelon, it's certainly not a bad snack at
times.

--
Bob in CT

I did specify GI load, which is probably redundant since I meant G
load or glyceamic load.

TC