The bit I take away from Counterbalance (study#2) is the use of MRI scans as evidence for liver and pancreas fat reductions that most on the diet experienced. This type of fat is very difficult to reduce with conventional low calorie diet, so to effect such a change I find impressive. If T2 Insulin Resistance turns out to be directly linked to NAFLD then this study shows a useful pathway to finding a reliable way to mitigate T2D.The answer to your question is yes.. Most of the 41 people who did the original 2 studies failed to reverse their Type 2 diabetes.
The main problem I find with the ND is that so far the actual studies Counterpoint 2011 and Counterbalance 2016 have involved about 41 people in total. Counterpoint was 11 to do proof of concept and Counterbalance was 30.
Counterpoint only did it for 8 weeks and so far as I know the participants were never followed up. At least I have never found any reference to it.
Counterbalance was followed up after 6 months and of the original 30 participants 13 were still "non diabetic" after this period. So a success rate of 43%.
From the two studies a whole plethora of people have tried to replicate the success of these experiments. To make claims based on such small studies seems a bit dangerous to me. Once the new study has been complete there will still be fewer than 200 people (of the current study half are in a control group) who have completed the ND "proper".
The bit I take away from Counterbalance (study#2) is the use of MRI scans as evidence for liver and pancreas fat reductions that most on the diet experienced. This type of fat is very difficult to reduce with conventional low calorie diet, so to effect such a change I find impressive. If T2 Insulin Resistance turns out to be directly linked to NAFLD then this study shows a useful pathway to finding a reliable way to mitigate T2D.
It may not be the only way to reduce fatty livers, as some Low Carb diets and fasting diets seem to be doing similar, but until someone hooks another study up with MRI scans, then there may not be formal evidence for these alternatives which will continue to be regarded as a fad by the HCP community.
I agree. But of the 30 participants on entry, at least one was kicked off for cheating on the protocol, and human nature suggests that maybe not all the remaining participants were 100% comitted to the strict protocol.But then shouldn't Counterbalance have had more success? I completely agree about the likelihood of NAFLD being significant in Type 2 but if most on the diet experienced benefits then surely most should have "reversed". I'm just a bit surprised that 2 studies with such small samples have been puffed up to be the great "cure" for Type 2.
Now back to the "Mail on Sunday" for some more health news updates..
Its still cheaper to pay a GP to prescribe a pill than tie up the scnners. Remember there are 3 million confirmed diabetices in UK alone, with some 80% being T2D. So some 2.5 million extra ultrsounds a year? Not on current budgets. Good for supporting small case studies like ND#2, but not suitable for upscaling.The ND is primarily aimed at reducing the size of the liver.
The size of the liver (and thus the amount of fat) can be found by an ultrasound scan or an MRI scan.
MRI is expensive but ultrasound isn't as far as I know.
At least, it is used routinely during pregnancy and also for screening for aortic aneurysms.
Which makes me wonder why ultrasound scans of the liver are not part of T2 care.
I was asking just about people on the Forum. It would be interesting to know your own experience. Also I was asking just about reversal not maintenance of reversal. We cannot know if reversal was maintained until people actually die!The answer to your question is yes.. Most of the 41 people who did the original 2 studies failed to reverse their Type 2 diabetes.
The main problem I find with the ND is that so far the actual studies Counterpoint 2011 and Counterbalance 2016 have involved about 41 people in total. Counterpoint was 11 to do proof of concept and Counterbalance was 30.
Counterpoint only did it for 8 weeks and so far as I know the participants were never followed up. At least I have never found any reference to it.
Counterbalance was followed up after 6 months and of the original 30 participants 13 were still "non diabetic" after this period. So a success rate of 43%.
From the two studies a whole plethora of people have tried to replicate the success of these experiments. To make claims based on such small studies seems a bit dangerous to me. Once the new study has been complete there will still be fewer than 200 people (of the current study half are in a control group) who have completed the ND "proper".
I would not be interested in reversal that lasted only a day or two. But sustained over 6 months is starting to look interesting. I might get excited if it is shown to last longer without needing a strict diet restriction, but I fear this is a pipe dream.I was asking just about people on the Forum. It would be interesting to know your own experience. Also I was asking just about reversal not maintenance of reversal. We cannot know if reversal was maintained until people actually die!
Although at that point it would be difficult (and really scary) for them to post here.I was asking just about people on the Forum. It would be interesting to know your own experience. Also I was asking just about reversal not maintenance of reversal. We cannot know if reversal was maintained until people actually die!
I agree. But of the 30 participants on entry, at least one was kicked off for cheating on the protocol, and human nature suggests that maybe not all the remaining participants were 100% comitted to the strict protocol.
That said, then there may be other factors showing here that the study methodology did not eliminate, such as Vit D levels, differences in exercise regimes, length of being diabetic, age, ethnic, sex, etc which did not appear to be identified in the test subjects. Hopefully the new study will try to be more thorough.
Exactly my thinking there.Interesting about length of being diabetic.. I went back and re-read Counterbalance.. on that one length of time was from 6 months to 23 years. Now on the DirRECT study it is 6 years or less.. which would imply to me it didn't work very well for those diagnosed for longer.
Get them while they are young, eh?Also the second study is looking to establish a protocol that can be rolled out in primary care and largely implimented by nurses - long term diabetics would be less likely to be dealt with in that way as the vast majority will have more complex treatment regimes that would be seen as requiring greater medical oversight ( not that the oversight is necessarily any good!)
Chook I too am finding I am hungry all the time on ND. I tried psyllium to prevent constipation and found that it filled me up and helped prevent me from lying awake hungry at night. Yesterday I gave in at 2am and had a small serving of plain yoghurt and my FBG this am was 6.4, higher than it has mostly been on ND. I shall try not to do that again.I've just been looking at the 2016 Protocol (which is, basically, an informational document for GPs) for the newer version of the ND diet and I would say that previous failures have been studied and learned from as there have been substantial changes since the original ND experiment - instead of 8 weeks the Protocol now says 12 weeks and up to 20 weeks if the individual hasn't lost 15 kg by the end of 12 weeks or needs to lose more weight than that. It also specifies a reintroduction to normal diet phase at the end. The interesting bit is towards the end of page 5 on the left hand column.
I am currently on the ND eating real food. This is my third attempt at the ND - both previous times I didn't get as far as I am now. If you are going to try the ND then I would suggest a lot of up front planning of menus, etc. and its definitely easier to base it around your normal food. I have also kept to low carb all the way through. Hunger has definitely been an issue for me though.
This is a link to the Protocol - http://www.directclinicaltrial.org.uk/protocol/DiRECTProtocol.pdf
I think the time extension seems to support the theory about a 'personal fat threshold'Chook I too am finding I am hungry all the time on ND. I tried psyllium to prevent constipation and found that it filled me up and helped prevent me from lying awake hungry at night. Yesterday I gave in at 2am and had a small serving of plain yoghurt and my FBG this am was 6.4, higher than it has mostly been on ND. I shall try not to do that again.
I think the time extension seems to support the theory about a 'personal fat threshold'