Read the question mark as John not knowing what he's talking about [add because he's a man, if you so wish. I won't be offended.]
I stumbled upon a post linking a vegetarian food guide back to the Dietitians of Canada. It's a dead link. Yay, they've seen the error in their ways. I went to their real site and looked around. I wasn't looking for anything in particular. I just browsed out of curiosity. I quickly came across their "Career Stories" section, profiles of dietitians in various roles.
I skimmed through the profiles. I even opened a few. There's a lots of description about their roles. It's a nice site with only a couple of minor technical glitches. Here's a header image from the site. It's quite professional looking, and everybody wears happy, happy, joy, joy faces. It feels congruent with my own impression of dietitians. I run into them once in awhile at the local diabetic teaching clinic, at company dietary education presentations, at diabetic events, and we'd consullted a few in our now dead diabetes support group. They all look like the women in this picture: happy, happy, joy, joy women, often wearing lab coats. Congruency.
I decided to think. I think it's a good idea to think about what you see and ask why it makes you feel the way you do and whether those thoughts and feelings are valid, correct. Or if they are they artificially induced by marketing techniques.
Some of my thoughts bothered me. I thought about what happens to these happy faces when I tell them I don't eat grains and very low carb in general. The sunshine turns grey, the teeth get bared, and the hairs on their backs stand up. Suddenly my thoughts were no longer about congruency.
I realized these women had something against my style of eating. I didn't dig into the style of eating topic. I know it's a dead end. But I did realize I was viewing my happy, happy, joy, joy image of dietitians with a lychnathropic bent as all women. I was not able to relate any of my images and feelings to the man of the tribe. I looked through the career stories again. I counted 70 profiles in 11 career streams. I counted two men. 68 to 2, good odds if you're shopping around for a woman. Try the dietitian bar next time. Must be a hopping spot.
I said the word I usually say when something bothers me: why? Why are almost all dietitians women, and is this a problem? Is this a genetic abberation, a cultural difference, or maybe outright sexual descrimination? I have no doubt that if 97% of dietitians were male, that the female of the species would be at least a little bit upset.
Honestly, I have no desire to think this through. Give me your comments please. But I will say that the whole idea of Grok does seem very male oriented. Yes, an image of a naked woman hunting down a wild animal with a spear is sexy to me, very sexy to me, but is the opposite true? Women seem to prefer well dressed, well mannered, candy-a$$ed men. Men like I see profiled on their site.
Cultural differences. So we have this group of dietitians with regulatory power to decide what people should eat, who feed our sick, invalid, and government sponsered citizens, and they are dominated by a group of people who prefer to work in a garden and a nice warm kitchen than run around naked, hunting wild beasts with primitive weapons. If that's not an inherent food bias, I don't know what is. No wonder Canada is so obese and sick.
Put Grok in charge ... NOW, before it's too late.
I've posted in the forum about this case, but if you are not familiar with it, Steve Cooksey, owner of the blog-site Diabetes-Warrior.net, is being investigated by the North Carolina Board of Dieticians for giving nutritional advice on his website without a license. It has attracted the attention of most of the low-carb community. Even non-low carbers are paying attention. I stole the term 'Cooksey Affair' from a physician's blog: S. Andrei Ostric MD, a plastic surgeon.
At issue are some fundamental concepts. I'd like to say fundamental rights, but I think it's even more basic than rights. Rights are something we should have the freedom to do without restriction. I should be free to stand up and say what I think. I am free to write this blog, as long as I follow the blog owner's rules. Many people around the world have legislated rights. I think you understand them, at least inherently. If not, then shut up. [in the words of the estimable Foghorn Leghorn, 'That's a joke, son'] Nobody is challenging Steve's right to speak his mind. They are challenging his right to tell you what he thinks you should eat.
The basis for this argument is that nutrition, or simply food, is medicine. While I can't argue that nutrition isn't a valid treatment of disease, after all, I am a diabetic, I do challenge the logic of this argument. I see many references to the Hypocratic Oath. Wikipedia's "Classic" version contains the statement "I will apply dietic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice."
Let's tread carefully here. This logic is a slippery slope. Food is used to treat illness; therefore food is a medicine. Only licensed practitioners should give medical advice, and since food is a medicine, only licensed practitioners should be able to give such advice. And this is how North Carolina's legislation reads, and they are not the only state with such legislation. Let's apply this logic to other things in our lives. Dangerous weapons should be licensed, and they are in Canada and other countries. An automobile is a dangerous weapon. Hit and Runs happen daily in America. Cars are weapons. They are used as weapons. They should be licensed as deadly weapons. Really? Think about this. Food can be used as medicine, so therefore food is a medicine and should be controlled as a medicine. I can kill somebody pretty easily with a golf club. Anybody watch The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo? Should we license golf clubs as deadly weapons? The dietitians in the crowd will now be chanting foul because only advice given for disease should be considered medical advice. Sorry, that's not how the laws read.
Let's get back to rights, no, something more fundamental: necessities. Think about what is necessary for life. Is your right to speak your mind necessary to keep you alive? If you listen to the current political debates, you'd think so, but no. We can lock you away in solitary for decades, and you'd survive without being able to speak to anybody. You won't thrive, but you will survive. A necessity is something even more fundamental. You need them. You will die very quickly without air. You will die more slowly without water, but you will still die. You will die slower still without food, especially you, the modern day obese government legislated metabolically unfit diabetic. Clothes are not necessary. You can move to the tropics and survive just fine. Medicine is not necessary. Well it is for me, the type 1 diabetic, but generally we don't require medicine to live.
So we have these necessities. They are more fundamental than rights. Should they be legislated? Do we need 'Bills of Necessities?' My answer is no. If you deprive someone of their necessities, it is a criminal act. We have pollution legislation to ensure our necessities remain pure. *please don't laugh too hard* And we have lots of legislation surrounding food quality. A food producer who sells you cow dung as nutritious food will face some severe consequences. *Oops. I forgot we can buy cat-**** coffee* Really though, necessities are so fundamental, we do not have to legislate their freedom. Supplying people with bad necessities is a criminal offense against the person, assault & battery. Ask a restauranteur how they are treated when one of their patrons is poisoned from food.
The North Carolina legislation takes the high road: food is medicine and needs to be governed. Nobody should give nutritional advice to anybody else, and should not feed anybody else, especially not for the purpose of treating an illness but not limited to ill people. I've read this legislation carefully, and I'm not a lawyer. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but there are cases that this law seems to govern that feel ... wrong.
Say I am a parent with children. According to this law, I cannot tell them what to eat. In fact, I cannot even feed them as that's running a food service. If I live in North Carolina, I put myself at risk by feeding my children. When my obese kids turn 18, should I expect a lawsuit? According to what I read here, it seems plausible. Do you have an elderly family member living with you? Are they ill, maybe even diabetic? You should not be accommodating and caring for them. You are breaking North Carolina laws. Send them to a nursing home where they have licensed dietitians to handle their medical needs.
"But Steve is treating diabetics!"
Am I treating diabetics? When someone asks me how they can eat like I do, and I tell them what they need to change, is that giving advice? Is that giving medical advice? It's not an easy question to answer. But there is one solution, and that solution already exists. If I give someone bad advice, they can sue me. If I represent myself as an expert in a field, and what I advise causes damage, they can take legal action against me. Shouldn't that be enough? Shouldn't that alone make Steve wary about handing out "you should do's?"
So, if someone represents themselves as the dietary experts and gives faulty dietary advice that results in damage to the recipients, shouldn't they be sued? And this leaves me with two questions I want you to think about. One: why hasn't Steve Cooksey been sued by any of his patients, and two: why isn't morbidly obese America suing dietitians and the USDA?
I will leave with a line from the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath intended for dietitians and food guideliners everywhere:
Above all, I must not play at God.
Terry, my very best girlfriend had her baby today by C-section, it weigh in at 8lbs.12oz. ,a beautiful baby boy,whom she named Gabriel-Alexander-Xavier Mullins or the X factor as I like to call him; Mother & baby Gabe are doing fine , guess they 'll be home by Sat. there in Pikeville hospital here in Southwest, Va but the hospital here is in Kentucky. Post pics. later
(News reporter towards the end Christian Louboutin Shoes coming from all Distance Na) happened to be counterfeited village teacher 16 are, Closed-circuit television node Cui experience enclosed often the microblogging Christian Louboutin Sale five ladies baring all considering the fact that old-time mentors from cui the general public to participate in amidst the country teacher-training books outlined due to Footings. this approach 3 as a result of Yichun Spot, Heilongjiang Cheap Christian Louboutin Region,benefit Bei'an,christian louboutin holiday sneakers,some Under Assistant,christian louboutin uk pumps, Representative a great bonus elementary instruction ideas furthermore remaining http://www.clshoesaleus.com/ duties.
I began pumping on June 26, 2006, a fun year filled with eye hemorrhaging, a vitrectomy, beginning my life at Diabetes Forums, and learning how to use this new tool. One problem I experienced from the starting line is failed sets. I call them failed because either they don't work as intended. It might be complete failure or poor performance. It might fail when it's inserted or a day or two later. I almost always experience inflammation at the site - redness and swelling. When a set works well, my blood sugars are typically near perfect. When they don't work well, I will run high, sometimes at a tolerable number but too often at an extreme number. A painful set and high BGs are automatic signals I need to change sets.
During this autumn of 2011 I experienced many bad sets. It got to the point just before Christmas where I seriously considered taking a pump vacation. But I procrastinate. Since about the time I started my Christmas Vacation, the day before, every set I've inserted has worked. My current set is on day 5, and my fasting BG today was 5.3 mmol/l. I recall seeing double digits once in the last three weeks, and that came down right away when I corrected. We'll blame it on Christmas. I hesitate to say a change has occurred, but the difference in performance between pre-Christmas and post is quite dramatic.
I never before considered that bad sets might be caused by something other than physics - inserting in to a sensitive location, external interference such as clothing friction or door knob entanglements, or maybe staying in the shower too long. I like hot showers, especially on mornings like today's where I had to chip my coconut oil with a knife.
As far as I know, I have not changed any of my bad habits. Over the holidays I actually worked on increasing them. I drank a quart of Goslings Black Seal rum and probably four bottles of wine. That's rather excessive for me. I didn't experience any hypos, and of course I didn't drink and drive. We did buy a kinect, and I've been trying some of the games. I like the one where I throw balls at targets. I can't say I've played enough to make a difference, but maybe I have. I turned the photographing option off. Eww!
I have made one big change - I am now eating far fewer carbs each day. I wasn't eating many before, at least by my dietitian's standards, say 75-100g a day. Not what I preach, and I won't make excuses. In mid-December I decided I needed to track my food intake closely for at least awhile. I'd been gaining weight, and the pressures to consume carby foods grew within me. With Christmas approaching, I felt I'd collapse in a chocolate frenzy. I had to regain control. My first tests were eye opening. I began to discover the true content of my diet, and I wasn't happy. That 10% Tim Hortons morning cream I thought was good was a big contributor. I now bring whiping cream to work and keep it in a fridge. I also now keep coconut oil at work. When I buy my morning Tim's, I buy it black. With other changes, I think I am now at or below my 10% carb limit I've set for myself. Yay.
I track my "performance" through my total daily insulin dosage (TDD). When it's under 40u, I know I will lose weight. When it's over 50u, I gain weight. At least that's what I go buy. I don't have the desire to try to target the threshold more closely. I know from experience that weight measurements vary greatly from day to day. The result would be no more accurate than eye-balling, so I tell myself. Here's my daily totals since December 11, 2011.
57.25, 45.3, 58.125, 57.25, 33.30, 33.30, 37.30, 38.125, 32.175, 48.30, 43.55, 61.30, 53.30, 41.75, 70.20, 50.30, 48.30, 59.275, 48.70, 50.275, 52.75, 50.50, 42.35, 52.525, 37.55, 40.40, 36.30, 43.25, 42.30, 44.30, 38.30. *Chritsmas day and New Years day are bold.
Even on these 50+ days, my carb consumption has been pretty good. Inactivity had run rampant. I blame it on Skyrim. There is some Christmas chocolate mixed in, and Christmas dinner is easy to find. I'm not going to pass over second helpings of Christmas dinner. I'm down three pounds over this period and maintained a state of ketosis since about Dec 21st. Back to my original topic, I haven't had a bad set since Christmas.
It does intrigue me why my sets were failing before these last three weeks and none since. I have theory, and it goes something like this. Sugars not only cause inflammation but exacerbate other inflammatory pressures. We all know that diabetics are slow to heal, but are we also quick to inflame? If this is the case, could we treat pump-set health as a marker for our overall health? If my sets are going bad, then aren't my arteries? If my sets are not inflamming, then maybe my internals aren't either? Hypothesis, but right now I'm willing to try and prove it. Can some researcher please tackle this for me? Thanks.
This theory fits in to my model of how things work, and please consider that a prejudiced bias. All I know is these past three weeks have been pump-set heaven, and for me, a motivation to continue this low carb journey. I welcome any experiences or alternate theories.
I didn't really do much today, and consequently found myself nibbling most of the day. Still low-carb, but the extra calories aren't great. At least I did eat a big salad in there, so it wasn't a total loss. :T
This morning I had a whimsical idea. I thought I should ask somebody in my socialist health care system for help, you know, all this for the people ****. So I fired off an email. I didn't think much. I didn't spend time crafting. It's more a how's it goin' eh? than a what the F are you idjuts doing, eh? kind of letter. I'm sure it will be passed around a few times before being tossed away. *sigh*