Out of interest: are GPs legally obliged to keep up to date? I presume they are, but what kind of ongoing training do they receive?
Cougar - Moderator
Seems like we all need 'experimental' GPs; what could possibly go wrong.
No, as I said the GP is fine for everyday ailments for the everyday situation.
But for many aspects of healthcare (rather than disease/illness management) you can find more current information from sources other than your GP.
And donning my pedants hat - if by "experimental" you mean "gathering data" then surely this is something any good GP is doing all the time?
Out of interest: are GPs legally obliged to keep up to date? I presume they are, but what kind of ongoing training do they receive?
Yes, Medical Salesmen give them which new products to buy and inducements.
Lets stick with leeches
They did as evidence found they do promote healing, it wasn't even sponsored by Kellogs.
some sort of evidence before making a decision,
Evidence of what? As this thread has quite a few "strands" I'm not clear to what you refer.
There is plenty of evidence that high GI carbs will make you fat. Also, depending on individuals insulin response, this will be more of a problem to some people than others.
There are more and more people who are becoming intolerant to gluten.
I think that it is pretty well accepted that large quantities of sugar is not healthy, however, for example, jacket potato is still considered a healthy food by the "mainstream" medical advice, yet it has a greater effect on your blood glucose level than table sugar.
If you can explain why blood glucose from table sugar is bad for you, as opposed to blood glucose from potato or pasta which is good for you, I would be eternally grateful.
There is also plenty of peer reviewed science that shows that carb causes muscle inflammation and water retention. Personally I benefited greatly from this effect of reducing carbs.
There is a noticeable resistance to look at current dietary advice and the possible link to the obesity problem.
"Gluten intolerant"
always sounds like a hillybilly criticising someone: "Dang my hide but he's gluten intolerant!"
Evidence of what? As this thread has quite a few "strands" I'm not clear to what you refer.
Ermmm! Of the OPs original question if a Ketonicgenic diet is a good idea.
If you can explain why blood glucose from table sugar is bad for you, as opposed to blood glucose from potato or pasta which is good for you, I would be eternally grateful.
Why would I sugars are sugars I thought most people understood that. Moderation is the key which again most people would understand but whether they choose to do that is different.
There are more and more people who are becoming intolerant to gluten.
Well if he's gluten intolerant then that's a different question all together.
Ermmm! Of the OPs original question if a Ketonicgenic diet is a good idea.
There is no evidence that it isn't! If the OP tries the diet, he will go into ketosis within a few days, he will soon find out if it helps or not.
I admit I have strayed from the original subject to a more general high carb diet argument.
However, I am amazed at the reluctance of the majority of the medical profession to question the current dietary advice that gets repeated over and over again, yet we get fatter and fatter. It seems to be a fear of having to actually admit they were wrong.
I hope the OP can re-post on here in a couple of weeks to see how it turned out for him.
I think that it is pretty well accepted that large quantities of sugar is not healthy, however, for example, jacket potato is still considered a healthy food by the "mainstream" medical advice
fibre, nutrients, vitamins - looks fairly usefully "healthy" to me
yet it has a greater effect on your blood glucose level than table sugar.
woah there tiger!
how much table sugar? an incy wincy tiddly widdly bit? or a whole bag?
If you can explain why blood glucose from table sugar is bad for you
it isn't, sugar is sugar is sugar - eventually, after digestion
as opposed to blood glucose from potato or pasta which is good for you, I would be eternally grateful.
the sugar in a potato isn't better or worse than the sugar in a bag of sugar, or a mars bar, or the worlds largest malteser
nor does the potato have a greater effect on your blood glucose level as compared to table sugar, that's voodoo talk
if you have equal carbs/sugar in your potato and sugar portion, potato comes out with a marginally lower effect* on blood glucose compared to raw sugar, something like 5 or 10% difference IIRC which seems to be easily explained by digestion of the potato vs digestion of neat sugar.
* according to GI/GL data
nor does the potato have a greater effect on your blood glucose level as compared to table sugar, that's voodoo talk
GI of table sugar 50.
GI of jacket potato without skin 85 ish.
how much table sugar? an incy wincy tiddly widdly bit? or a whole bag?
OK, fair enough, to compare, 100g of potato is about the same carb content as a tablespoon of table sugar but because of the GI it hits your blood quicker.
So a typical 200g jacket potato is worse on blood glucose than 6 teaspoons of table sugar.
I would wager that there are not many on here who would consider that quantity of table sugar to be healthy.
Apart from some vitamin C, there are very little useful nutrients in potato.
Pasta is even worse, more carb and even less nutrition.
Yep, pretty much the only thing I took away from keto diet is that I've reduced my carb intake a lot still but have "good" carbs instead. I only ever have potatoes as a treat (chips or proper roasties) as they seem pretty nutritionally shit and don't even taste that great most of the time. Never eat pasta any more as it's bland without sauce, then I'd rather just have more of the sauce and meat anyway.
In regards to the weight loss thing I thought the magic formula was more activity performed than calories consumed, I pretty much reckon that you can eat almost anything and lose weight that way, whether it's high carb or not?
I don't see how that medical wisdom needs questioning?
I don;t think population getting fatter has anything to do with poor dietary advice it's due to too much sitting about and eating too much of highly processed sugar added foods.
The diet thing really has air of the Gilliam McKeith's around it all for me...
100g of potato is about the same carb content as a tablespoon of table sugar but because of the GI it hits your blood quicker.
Ah. I think you've relying on GI to provide a magic index of good and bad. Unfortunately, GI was based on a "portion size" of each food. It's not a system that tells you much of any use when you start looking at comparing 100g of sugar with a potato that provides 100g of carbs.
All GI can tell you is that a single spoonful of sugar has less effect than a whole jacket potato. But this is fairly self evident - a jacket potato is a shitpile bigger than a spoonful of sugar and manifestly contains far more carbs.
Have a look at the GL system for a slightly more "fixed" system of rating carbs. Potatos, quite sensibly, come out as being slightly better than raw sugar.
As for nutrients;
Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Vitamin K, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12, Pantothenic Acid, Choline, Betaine
Or some minerals;
Calcium, Iron, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sodium, Zinc,
Copper, Manganese, Selenium
^ cribbed from nutritiondata.self.com
Personally, I'm intending on eating potatoes for a good long time. YMMV etc.
In regards to the weight loss thing I thought the magic formula was more activity performed than calories consumed, I pretty much reckon that you can eat almost anything and lose weight that way, whether it's high carb or not?I don't see how that medical wisdom needs questioning?
People are questioning the definition of "calorie", and whether it's correct or not - and obviously if it's not correct that simple formula is wrong.
A priori there's no reason to suppose one calorie of sugar has exactly the same effect on my body as on my adolescent daughter's - I'm over twice her age, different sex, she's going through adolescence... Likewise does one calorie of sugar have the same effect as one calorie of fat? Again, there's no automatic reason to assume they do - they might, they might not.
I don;t think population getting fatter has anything to do with poor dietary advice it's due to too much sitting about and eating too much of [s]highly processed sugar added foods[/s] high carb content foods.
FTFY
Carbs turn to glucose and cause the release of insulin, if the glucose is not immediately used, it is stored as fat.
Current dietary advice is to eat lots of whole grain, pasta, muesli, etc. A pretty good way to get fat.
Current dietary advice is to eat lots of whole grain, pasta, muesli, etc. A pretty good way to get fat.
It would appear to be slightly more complicated. i.e. It's a good way to get fat if you can't metabolize carbs well.
I happened to listen to this podcast this morning as I was interested on what Tim Noakes and Matt Fitzgerald views were on their contradictory nutrition advice.
http://runneracademy.com/ra024-tim-noakes/
Likewise does one calorie of sugar have the same effect as one calorie of fat?
As I understand it - they have [i]approximately[/i] the same effect, as far as medical science is aware.
Calories are measured by finding the amount of energy released during burning. Fairly obviously, your stomach doesn't set fire to your lunch, so whatever it is doing is a bit different. But. As a tool, "calories" are useful enough, as far as it goes.
Its also perfectly possible we* will discover that certain hormones will alter the digestion and processing of different nutrients/food groups/etc.
* decent scientific tested results, etc etc,
As I understand it - they have approximately the same effect, as far as medical science is aware.Calories are measured by finding the amount of energy released during burning. Fairly obviously, your stomach doesn't set fire to your lunch, so whatever it is doing is a bit different. But. As a tool, "calories" are useful enough, as far as it goes.
Its also perfectly possible we* will discover that certain hormones will alter the digestion and processing of different nutrients/food groups/etc.
* decent scientific tested results, etc etc,
That's my understanding of it, but as you point out there's still a large element of doubt in the process - and it may be that "calories" as a measurement are misleading.
Mind you, I don't doubt that most (if not all) GPs are well aware of this debate, and follow the evidence (and government guidelines) when talking to their patients. If decent evidence comes out that calorie counting should be dropped as a tool, I'm sure there would be little resistance to doing so.
Current dietary advice is to eat lots of whole grain, pasta, muesli, etc. A pretty good way to get fat.
Is it? Surely that depends on which diet you follow. I know that's certainly not the diet my wife has used.
Statistically tested treatments, good (hopefully) people skills and knowledgeable referalls yes, but cutting edge science, no.
No doctor in the world will be practicing cutting edge science on patients, just on the fly. They may be perfroming clinical trials etc but for an intervention to be approved for use on real people it has to get a long way from "cutting edge". And guess what, GPs also participate in clinical trials. A GP is equivalent in knowledge to a hospital consultant, they are just experts in general medicine rather than on a single subject.
In the OPs case the GP will know the best course of action for him initially, that will be to try various treatments and may include a change in diet if something is obviously deficient. If this doesn't work the OP can ask to be refered to a consultant neurologist (the GP may recomend this anyway without prompting). The consultant will then be able to apply their greater knowledge of their specialist field, maybe some knowledge of experimental treatments if any exist, advice against quack therapies etc.
But why rely on that tried and proven system when some quack in America, the land of oportunity (and nut jobs,) has written and book that has been recomended by your dentist.
I have experience of that diet in that a college at work was following it. It struck me that any diet where you are not eating your fruit and veg is not a good thing (those evil carb things that your body uses as fuel).
Anyway, he got quite ill with a stomach condition. By all means follow it if you want but I personally don't think it's a healthy condition for a human to be in and I use his example as proof.
Current dietary advice is to eat lots of whole grain, pasta, muesli, etc. A pretty good way to get fat
I don't know where, as most of the dietary advice I have seen has been to cut right back on such things.
as ever, grateful if the experts on this thread would kindly sign off with their BMI
19
soobalias - Member
as ever, grateful if the experts on this thread would kindly sign off with their BMI19
If you're an expert you'll be well aware that BMI is a fairly pointless measurement, especially if you're a s****thlete.
Body Fat percentage is the important number.
Yours,
28% BF
:o)
your advice is now highly recommended, as you appear to sit on your arris all day, you probably read and therefore i respect you.
13%
is there some sort of scoring for your ethical sourcing of foodstuffs?
In the OPs case the GP will know the best course of action for him initially, that will be to try various treatments and may include a change in diet if something is obviously deficient.
I admire you optimism. But in reality when presenting with a migraine the OP will probably be fobbed off by his/her GP with iburofen and paracetamol. And when that doesn't work and/or get to the root cause of the problem be prescribed anti-depressants, as it is all clearly in the mind.
If the OP on the other hand went to a nutritionist/alternative practioner who actually took the time to find out the underlying cause of the migraine (rather than just treat the symptoms) and then suggested a course of action to address the underlying cause, he or she may actually end up with a better quality of life.
That may or may not involve reducing fast carbs, cereals etc. But it certainly has nothing to do with dieting or BMI.
Yeh, OP, have you considered a blood test? Or a food allergy test?
I admire you optimism. But in reality when presenting with a migraine the OP will probably be fobbed off by his/her GP with iburofen and paracetamol. And when that doesn't work and/or get to the root cause of the problem be prescribed anti-depressants, as it is all clearly in the mind.
For over 30 years I've suffered from them at about 11 my GP tried to find the trigger point by sending me for various tests, that was 30 years ago so in my experience no they don't fob you off.
Thought some of you might find the following interesting, well written and easy to understand article on why the low fat paradigm is wrong (or at least not entirely right). For those more interested author is Gary Taubes and this was his 2002 NY Times piece some time before his Why We Get Fat book.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
edit: on reading the posts I noted it interesting that many asked for evidence re keto diets yet no one asked for the evidence on low fat diets? evidence for the latter is most lacking of the two.
