From: Trinkwasser on
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:53:32 +0100, Nicky <ukc802466929(a)btconnect.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:38:42 +0100, John Williamson
><johnwilliamson(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>I'd also be wondering how reliable the other plans are, given what's
>>known about the shortcomings of the diabetic one for diabetics.
>
>I would put money on Tescos having run their diet plan past DUK, and
>got the OK from them. Shooting DUK's dieticians en masse would
>probably improve the breed no end.

Yes, and yes.
From: Frederick Williams on
Patti wrote:
>
> Thought this might be of interest:-
>
> http://www.tescodiets.com/index.cfm?currpage=contact&subsection=contact&code=350144
> their suggested "diabetic diet" is so appalling that many members of
> diabetes-support.org.uk have written to their dietitian protesting.
> "Catherine" has written back extremely smugly defending their diet.

What did Catherine (or even "Catherine") say. Why would anyone at all
interested in the health aspects of what they eat take the advise of a
food retailer anyway?

--
He is not here; but far away
The noise of life begins again
And ghastly thro' the drizzling rain
On the bald street breaks the blank day.
From: John Williamson on
Frederick Williams wrote:
> Patti wrote:
>> Thought this might be of interest:-
>>
>> http://www.tescodiets.com/index.cfm?currpage=contact&subsection=contact&code=350144
>> their suggested "diabetic diet" is so appalling that many members of
>> diabetes-support.org.uk have written to their dietitian protesting.
>> "Catherine" has written back extremely smugly defending their diet.
>
> What did Catherine (or even "Catherine") say. Why would anyone at all
> interested in the health aspects of what they eat take the advise of a
> food retailer anyway?
>
My e-mail to her & her reply are quoted elsewhere in the thread.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.
From: David WE Roberts on
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:26:29 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

> On 2008-07-24 23:04:31 +0100, Nicky <ukc802466929(a)btconnect.com> said:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:44:18 +0100, Andy Hall <andyh(a)hall.nospam>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps the GI one is more suitable for diabetics than the diabetic one.
>>
>> Well, I've nicked some recipes - but they're still very into Basmahti
>> rice, and to make sure your pasta is al dente...
>>
>> Nicky.
>> T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid
>> D&E, 100ug thyroxine
>> Last A1c 5.4% BMI 25
>
> I find that Basmahti rice is worse than the others.
>
> Solution with pasta has been to have a small amount rather than not at all.

My dietitians keep telling me that Basmahti rice is the lowest GI of all
rices.
Is this incorrect, or is low GI not the same as slow release and low blood
sugar?

From: Tiger_Lily on
David WE Roberts wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:26:29 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:
>
>> On 2008-07-24 23:04:31 +0100, Nicky <ukc802466929(a)btconnect.com> said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:44:18 +0100, Andy Hall <andyh(a)hall.nospam>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps the GI one is more suitable for diabetics than the diabetic one.
>>> Well, I've nicked some recipes - but they're still very into Basmahti
>>> rice, and to make sure your pasta is al dente...
>>>
>>> Nicky.
>>> T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid
>>> D&E, 100ug thyroxine
>>> Last A1c 5.4% BMI 25
>> I find that Basmahti rice is worse than the others.
>>
>> Solution with pasta has been to have a small amount rather than not at all.
>
> My dietitians keep telling me that Basmahti rice is the lowest GI of all
> rices.
> Is this incorrect, or is low GI not the same as slow release and low blood
> sugar?
>

i will ONLY use Basmati rice

someone once explained the starch chain in detail, and why it's lower GI
than the other rices (wild rice excepted)

--
kate
type 1 since 1987
www.diabetic-chat.org
www.diabetic-talk.org
http://www.diabetes-support.org.uk/newly%20diagnosed.html