 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / February 2007Diabetes Diet Semantics Discussion Thread
I propose that you use this thread to discuss the nuances of the words cure, control and remission in regards to low-carb as a means to improve the health of a diabetes-struck person. You managed to blur a very interesting piece of knowledge and what could have been quite an interesting discussion. I give you this thread, so that you can empty all needs for a phrase discussion. If you want to start a flame-war. People will NEVER agree on "CURE or CONTROL".  SignatureT2 Nov' 06 Actos 30mg Low-carb diet Exercise : : I propose that you use this thread to discuss the nuances of the words [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : what could have been quite an interesting discussion. I give you this : thread, so that you can empty all needs for a phrase discussion. :: I propose that you use this thread to discuss the nuances of the :: words cure, control and remission in regards :: to low-carb as a means to improve the health of a diabetes-struck :: person. You managed to blur a very interesting piece of knowledge and :: what could have been quite an interesting discussion. I give you this :: thread, so that you can empty all needs for a phrase discussion. I propose that you get a clue. As one who has had diabetes for 26 years, I know I'm not cured, but I live with good control. ::: I propose that you use this thread to discuss the nuances of the ::: words cure, control and remission in regards [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : As one who has had diabetes for 26 years, I know I'm not cured, but I live : with good control. Like I said "People will NEVER agree on "CURE or CONTROL". SignatureT2 Nov' 06 Actos 30mg Low-carb diet Exercise ::: H.L wrote: ::::: I propose that you use this thread to discuss the nuances of the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] :: Like I said "People will NEVER agree on "CURE or :: CONTROL". What is there to agree on - they are two different things. If I were cured of T2D, then I could eat anything I want and never have issues with BG. More over, there are some people for whom even LC won't result in control of BG. Hence, they cannot be controled, let alone cured. > ::: I propose that you use this thread to discuss the nuances of the > ::: words cure, control and remission in regards [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Like I said "People will NEVER agree on "CURE or > CONTROL". I feel the same way about "green" and "red". > 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. SignatureAaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/ "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> writes: :: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: 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, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: 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. > I propose that you use this thread to discuss the nuances of the words > cure, control and remission in regards > to low-carb as a means to improve the health of a diabetes-struck > person. You managed to blur a very interesting piece of knowledge and > what could have been quite an interesting discussion. I give you this > thread, so that you can empty all needs for a phrase discussion. 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 . :: 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! > . > :: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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. SignatureBob in CT > > tunder...@hotmail.com wrote: > > . [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > Bob in CT I did specify GI load, which is probably redundant since I meant G load or glyceamic load. TC It is interesting that although my HbA1c has been normal for a couple of years, that I am still defined by my doctor as diabetic. Semantic confusion is to be expected. > I propose that you use this thread to discuss the nuances of the words > cure, control and remission in regards > to low-carb as a means to improve the health of a diabetes-struck > person. You managed to blur a very interesting piece of knowledge and > what could have been quite an interesting discussion. I give you this > thread, so that you can empty all needs for a phrase discussion. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.