Physicians don’t address diabetes the right way

November 22, 2006 at 1:28 pm 2 comments

A letter to the editor in the Kennebec Journal (Maine) had this gem:

Physicians don’t address diabetes the right way

On Nov. 4, the Kennebec Journal discussed the epidemic of diabetes. Diabetes is a nutritional disease. Dr. Sears said that this was a “societal problem” due to less activity and bigger portions.

But the Centers for Disease Control Health Report shows we are more active and many of us eat fewer calories than we did in 1994. Clearly calories in, calories out is oversimplified. Eating equivalent calories from carrots or coke will do profoundly different things to the body. Doctors must address the individual needs of patients, checking thyroid levels, stress levels, sleep deprivation and simple carbohydrate intake. But 72 percent of overweight patients are never even told by their doctors to lose weight (Nov. 7, KJ).

On Nov. 9 in the newspaper, we learned a low-carb diet is “not a risk” for heart disease. Protein sparing fasts have been shown to lower: “Fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c.” In clinical practice, I have seen blood sugars drop into the normal range when patients change their diets. In effect, we have the cure for type II diabetes and we are not training our doctors to use it. Even in 2006, only 30 percent of medical doctors have ever taken a separate course on nutrition. These are the specialists who are trying every drug possible when the diet of their patients is literally killing them.

Dr. Christopher Maloney

Advertisements

Entry filed under: Uncategorized.

The Cure for Diabetes? Sidebar Updates

2 Comments Add your own

  • 1. K. Dill  |  November 22, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    But the Centers for Disease Control Health Report shows we are more active and many of us eat fewer calories than we did in 1994.

    How many is many?

    I question his statements about calories, According to the USDA the average caloric intake in 1994 was 2557 but was 2749 in 2004. So I’m not sure what the difference in the data between the CDC and USDA is. Or is it a case of the healthy getting healthier and the sick getting sicker

  • 2. Regina Wilshire  |  November 22, 2006 at 2:39 pm

    I’ve seen the USDA data (and the FAO data) but not the CDC data – I have to look it up. I just thought it was interesting the paper published the letter given the animosity toward carbohydrate restriction and difficulty many find getting their letters published. It’s not like no one is writing them – they’re just not getting published!

    Comment on the last item – sick getting sicker – I think that’s part of it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


November 2006
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Feeds


%d bloggers like this: