Jump to content
Diabetes forums
  • Welcome To Diabetes Forums!

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today to contribute and support the site.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

miketurco

what's the deal with the ada?

Recommended Posts

miketurco

Just happened across another article with some really bad advice. Where do they come up with this stuff? Why does the diabetes community stand for it? How is out that they have hoodwinked so many medical professionals?

 

My suspicion is that they're mostly funded by the grain industry and so forth. But that's just me and the way I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ant hill

My suspicion is that they're mostly funded by the grain industry and so forth. But that's just me and the way I think.

It's quite obvious that they chase the $$$. It's the same with Big Parma too with their sales people who are dressed up to impress the doctors with very attractive incentives. This is not Health care, It's Big Bissness!!!!!! With Billions of Dollars. Yes they are not interested in your health as they rather like you sick as that means $$$ to them. The food industry is also the same as what sells is $$$ in their pocket.

 

So read all you can about Real Health, Not Drugs from Corrupt Doctors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Any association with major funding provided by corporations is going to tailor their rhetoric around the dictates of their sponsors.  Find out where their funding comes from and who is on their board of directors and you will get your answers.

 

Just like the "news" outlets - nothing has to be based on facts anymore.  Just needs to lean in the direction of the major corporate sponsors to allow them to lead the general public around by the nose.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samuraiguy

Just happened across another article with some really bad advice. Where do they come up with this stuff? Why does the diabetes community stand for it? How is out that they have hoodwinked so many medical professionals?

 

My suspicion is that they're mostly funded by the grain industry and so forth. But that's just me and the way I think.

Because we know only about 28% of diabetics who require medical attention each year has an A1C under 7 according to CDC statistics the bulk of the "diabetes community" don't even practice the ADA guidelines or remaining under 7 so they probably think the ADA is too restrictive, anything lower than that, uber restrictive. It's not from lack of information or access to it, you don't need a organization to tell you too much carbohydrates raises blood glucose or that being inactive and overweight make things worse, it's just basic lack of will power even in the face of a debilitating disease. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tribbles

If the ADA said go LCHF and keep it under 40g per day they would get almost nobody and fail in their mission. This is about sales and the art of the possible, and the ADA are well aware of that. In a world where the majority of diabetics will not even take one pill once a day the ADA has an uphill task so trying to get people to lose weight, exercise, and eat whole foods is a good start.

 

Anyway the ADA publish Diabetes Care and lets me read most of it for free so they are ok with me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
miketurco

All of the above makes sense to me.

 

It's a shame that the diabetes "pros" you pay so much to see provide so little help. Not that one could get away with not seeing them. Just that what the understand and preach includes a lot of bull. And that's courtesy of the ADA.

 

If the ADA were to tighten up ship, they'd get major resistance from the insurance agency and the government. Dollar for dollar they're better off with sick diabetics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aggie

I just don't think that it makes sense that the ADA doesn't give the best possible advice 'because nobody would follow it'.  So they give harmful advice?  Makes no sense.  A lot of people do believe what they say, and these diabetics think they are doing the best they can by following the advice.  Giving information that the ADA knows is incorrect is unethical at the very least.  

 

The problem, in my opinion, is that they started giving this advice back when 'low fat, high carb' was the prevailing thought.  It is known that diabetics are more prone to heart disease, and it was also really thought that fat was the culprit for gaining weight and heart disease, so their advice followed the prevalent belief system of the day.  But then, when that was called into question, and low carb became more fashionable, I think the ADA was trapped and could not suddenly change their tune without being sued by everyone who had complications from their previous advice. So, they stuck with their party line.  I think it's a sort of 'saving face', which as we have seen with multiple diverse situations, from Penn State football to companies avoiding car recalls to the Catholic church and pedophiles, always leads to serious consequences, not in the best interests of people.

 

This is all conjecture, of course, but I think it makes the most sense.  Sort of a justification they employ for not doing the right thing:  Oh, yes, low carb helps *some people* but we can't recommend it because very few would follow it.  Uh huh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Todd G.

I used to have a link to an ADA guide for diabetics circa 1930'ish. It was extreme low carb high fat all the way. They started modifying this stance in the 1950's I believe, and here we are today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ant hill

It's the same for the last 70 years you are Sick, We have Thus, So Money Please $$$ Chuch - Ang!!!! (Cash registers ringing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eh562300

I found some information on the diabetes warrior site with a link to the amount of dollars given to the ADA by Big Pharma -- over $31 million dollars in 2012.  Todd, I wish you could show us the link you found, I would like to see it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tribbles

Everything is relative. Is a diabetic better off on a Big Mac and soda diet or eating healthily and more low glycemic? Ok, lets go for that because you aren't going to get the diabetic population to go low carb, I certainly won't and I'm a *lot* more compliant that most Type 2s.

 

This is a world where Type 2 diabetics are told if they take one pill a day they can pretty much eat what they like, but the bulk of them won't even do that. If you think these people are going to go low carb you are living in a fool's paradise. Personally I think if the ADA can get people to eat whole foods rather than processed rubbish they are doing a great job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tribbles

If the ADA were to tighten up ship, they'd get major resistance from the insurance agency and the government. Dollar for dollar they're better off with sick diabetics. 

 

Actually the government and the insurers would be cheering them on! Remember both diabetes and complications cost them a lot of money, It's why they will even contemplate providing pumps at $5,000+ a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tribbles

I can't find the exact link. It was a reprint of the actual doc, but this is interesting:

 

http://journal.diabetes.org/diabetesspectrum/00v13n3/pg116.htm   See the purple chart when you scroll down a little.

 

Looking at that chart is fascinating, you can see how they arrive at the numbers. In 1927 when Joslin came up with his diabetic diet insulin only started to be used 4 years earlier and was still rather unreliable, carbs were still dangerous. By the 1950s NPH was out, insulin was reliable and a lot more predictable, you could eat more carbs now (in fact if you were on NPH you more or less had to!) and the guidelines changed to reflect that.

 

The changing guidelines are a reflection of the improvements in treatment, the promise of which was that you can eat a diet of refined muck just like everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The changing guidelines are a reflection of the improvements in treatment, the promise of which was that you can eat a diet of refined muck just like everyone else.

 

It's all about individual choices though, don't you think?

 

When you have a disease that requires individual management and treatment, you can't do what everyone else does.  It requires, if you want any type of control over it and the complications that can come from lack of control, that you not "eat a diet of refined muck just like everyone else". 

 

You have stated that you won't go low carb.  That's a personal decision that you've made for control and management of your disease and allow you some freedom in your dietary choices. 

 

After following the recommended ADA diet for six weeks after dx, my BG's were constantly up in the 200's and I gained 20 pounds.  I chose to abandon that plan and adopt a modified form of the HFLC diet that most of the folks on this site follow.  But, that's a personal choice that I made because I want to have better control over my BG's and how my body utilizes the fuel I give it, and because testing showed me that this diet is better for my glucose testing results and my weight control.  I choose to take the time to record and pay attention to my testing results after eating certain foods.  I choose to research alternative diet options and test them on myself.  I choose to be in control of my disease, and not let my doctors or my insurance company or the ADA dictate to me how I will manage it if I see that their recommendations aren't working for me.   

 

Mike's (OP) original question was (paraphrased) - "Why does the diabetes community put up with bad advice, and how are these guidelines created?"  And the answer is that most folks feel that they pay their doctors for medical advice, which they follow because, come on, these are professionals that were educated in their fields and know what they are talking about, right?  And the doctors are "guided" by the ADA, which is "guided" by it's corporate sponsors and the corporate sponsors are guided by the wants and needs of their investors.  

 

My doctors and my insurance company need to realize that I "hired" them by agreeing to pay their fees/premiums, and I can fire them, too.  Diabetics in general can choose to follow the recommended guidelines, or not.  It's all about individual choices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tribbles

It's all about individual choices though, don't you think?

...

 

Mike's (OP) original question was (paraphrased) - "Why does the diabetes community put up with bad advice, and how are these guidelines created?"  And the answer is that most folks feel that they pay their doctors for medical advice, which they follow because, come on, these are professionals that were educated in their fields and know what they are talking about, right?  And the doctors are "guided" by the ADA, which is "guided" by it's corporate sponsors and the corporate sponsors are guided by the wants and needs of their investors.

 

I absolutely think it is a personal choice, and for most Type 2 diabetics that personal choice is to ignore the problem. The ADA guidelines are about what is achievable. If you are sufficently motivated you will follow up and find more information, if you aren't at least you might eat better. Getting people to change their lifestyle permanently is scary so they don't want to do it.

 

I have worked with diabetes support groups and we have had big pharma companies wanting to sponsor us but we have always refused. This was not because it would influence us, but because people would think it did. The pharmas know that and for them it's not about influence, it's about getting their name in front of an audience - that's where the value is as they trade off your reputation. When you get a new meter you get one whose name you have seen...

 

If you want to see the state of the art ADA advice then read Diabetes Care and their research publications.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aggie

There is absolutely no logical reason for the ADA to give misleading information 'because people won't follow low carb'.  That is crazy.  They should give accurate information about what would work best, so at least people KNOW what that is. As it stands, people probably trust that the American Diabetes Association is official and trustworthy to explain what the best diet to maintain health, lower A1c levels, and lower blood sugar all around.  In fact, the ADA isn't even giving people a chance to lower their carbs and control this by diet only.  That is unethical in my opinion.  Put the information out there, and if people choose to ignore it, that's their choice. But at least they have the choice to make. At least they know what the choices ARE.

 

I find it scary that there are some people who would indeed be willing to change their diet but don't even know that would be helpful.  

 

I personally don't see what the big deal is about low carb.  It's not that hard to follow.  I don't understand why it is not 'achievable', but I surely don't want my access to good, scientific information to be limited because by people who just put their head in the sand.  Why should such people influence 'best medical advice' for OTHERS?

 

Should the Lung Association not recommend quitting smoking because it is so hard to do and a lot of people fail or ignore their advice?  No?  Well, how is that different than this situation?

 

Unbelievable.  Truly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tribbles

There is absolutely no logical reason for the ADA to give misleading information 'because people won't follow low carb'.  That is crazy.  They should give accurate information about what would work best, so at least people KNOW what that is.

 

...

 

I personally don't see what the big deal is about low carb.  It's not that hard to follow.  I don't understand why it is not 'achievable', but I surely don't want my access to good, scientific information to be limited because by people who just put their head in the sand.  Why should such people influence 'best medical advice' for OTHERS?

 

The ADA believes the information is good, you believe it's misleading - not much to say really.

 

Any significant change to lifestyle is always a big deal and diet is always significant. I fail to see how anyone is limiting your access to scientific information, and why anyone ignoring data has any effect on you either. The information for LCHF is out there all over all the forums, blogs, etc. so if you look you will find it. People who are motivated will find it, those who aren't motivated won't find it - but then if they are unmotivated they aren't going to change anyway.

 

I personally have no interest in going low carb - it offers me no benefits as I cover whatever I eat with insulin. My A1c and weight are smack where I want them so obviously ADA advice can work. There are few wrong or right answers in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aggie

I just feel that a lot of people would trust the ADA, their doctors, and diabetes educators, and would not necessarily go onto internet forums and look for alternatives.  Particularly older people, some of whom are not so into technology. We really cannot assume that every diabetic has real access to technology or knowledge about how to use it effectively. 

 

Insulin isn't an alternative for someone who still has pretty good, but delayed, insulin production, right? So those of us in the beginning stages of the disease can't use insulin safely.  My hope is to delay the progression of the disease using a low carb diet.  Really, at this stage, it's one of the few things I CAN do. And I am pleased to have found out about it, but it wasn't from this forum. It was from my husband's doctor as a way for him to lose weight (he isn't diabetic)… 15 years ago.

 

Honestly I do not know if the ADA believes its information is good.  I do remember reading somewhere that they admitted a low carb diet could be helpful at least in some cases, but they wouldn't recommend it because nobody would follow it.  I have a real problem with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forester

The argument that people will not change their eating habits because of a hefty recommendation from the "experts" like the ADA and government is not supported by the data.  For example, look to the strong push for low fat (especially saturated fat) diets, as misguided as that was.  Unfortunately it worked all too well, since it resulted in many folks' near paranoia about dietary fat, and resultant net increase in dietary carbs that may have contributed to the increase in Metabolic Syndrome and frank t2 diabetes. It may not have changed the total calorie intake, but it sure did change the ratios of macronutrients a significant portion of the population consumed.

 

As has already been mentioned, look to who pays their salary?  Who pays the most campaign contributions?  Who pays out the grants?  Follow the money.  This is not conspiracy theory, it is economics and pragmatism.  But the weight of evidence can eventually have an impact.  Look at what what has happened to people's view on the tobacco industry, and smoking in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.