Will YOU ask your Dr for the 600 cal diet

[IanD]

Marzeater » Tue Jul 05, 2011 7:02 pm
Just seen my GP about this to ask his advice before going ahead with it.
He has told me not to do it yet, and has written to a specialist to ask his opinion. A further appointment has been made to discuss it further in 3 weeks by which time he should have a response.
GP said i'm the first to raise this with him but wont be the last.

Will all 2 million diabetics demand to go on the 600 cal cure? Will YOU?

Please keep us posted with your Dr's response, & your results.

 

[Gratope]

Hi, I have asked my doc about this whilst there on a routine appt. He laughed and said " sure, I will book you into hosp behind the other 2.3 million type 2's, shall I ?"
Seriously, he said he wants to know a lot more about it yet before he does anything.

 

[borofergie]

I might well do it, but I'm not going to ask the Doctor when I know that the answer is "No" and "Have you tried eating more carbohydrates?".

It's easy enough to get hold of Optifast on ebay...

 

[pixor]

I'm not asking my Dr.

So far I've been very unimpressed at how much my GP and practice nurse know about diabetes. My opinion is that I should educate myself on the subject and make my own decisions.

I started a 600 calorie a day diet just over a week ago, and am writing up my experiences on my blog, http://diabetic-living.net .

I'm tracking my waking blood sugars daily, and after a week I managed to get my numbers down from 14mmol/l to 8mmol/l.

 

[markd]

If I felt I needed it, I'd certainly ask my Dr or, if refused, try it myself.

As it is, fasting and 2hr pp has been at 4.5 or below all week, so happy as I am now. When I decided to lose a lot of weight, I didn't go as low as 600 cals/day - more like 1100 - but added a lot of exercise over 8 months or more, so the net energy balance may have been similar. 3 years on and still stable - slightly better, if anything.

 

[Heblady]

NO my GP would never allow it..I walk miles every day..my job is very physical The body ( mine anyway) needs fuel..My diet is fine

 

[NewdestinyX]

The poll questions are worded a little strangely.. as if those are the 'only choices'. And the wording - "I don't need to because.." can be misleading and maybe illogical only from the aspect that 'we all NEED' and would 'WANT" to find a way to reduce the fat around our organs - which is the 'crux' of this 'new finding' and the only aspect of it that 'promises' to 'reverse the diabetes'. Now I don't believe for a moment that they're 'reversing - permanently' the diabetes.. They only worked with 11 individuals and only for 8 weeks and there's no data as to what happened on week 9 and after..

BUT -- IF the diabetes stayed in 'a sort of remission' for 'years' -- and the reason was reducing or eliminating the fat around the pancreas and liver -- then 'every one' of us would surely be interested in such a fix. I can't imagine anyone who wouldn't. And then having:
I don't need to - I'm happy with LO GI
I don't need to - I'm happy with LO CARB
I don't need to - I'm happy with OTHER
as the only 'qualifying' choices -leaves out too many common 'other practices'. I think it would have been better worded:
YES
NO -get rid of this one..
NO, LO GI works well enough for me.
NO, LO CARB works well enough for me.
NO, MOD CARB works well enough for me.
NO, LO GI + SOME ORALS and/or INSULIN works well enough for me.
NO, LO CARB + SOME ORALS and/or INSULIN works well enough for me.
NO, MOD CARB + SOME ORALS and/or INSULIN works well enough for me.
NO, some other regimen entirely works well enough for me.

I think that's the minimum # of categories in the poll you could have to make it the most complete survey..

 

[catherinecherub]

Grant,

The poll was devised by a member here. He can put what questions he likes.
There is a place for NO because there are lots of people who would not attempt this diet.

 

[NewdestinyX]

Grant,
There is a place for NO because there are lots of people who would not attempt this diet.

Ah yes! Good point, Catherine. The simple NO answer would need to be there.

As to the other possible answers to the poll question -- my point was that they left a lot of us out from answering 'anything'.

 

[mehdave]

No because its a lot of nonsense.

 

[Heblady]

No because its a lot of nonsense.

:lol: Oh thank goodness someone else thinks like me

 

[NewdestinyX]

No because its a lot of nonsense.

Actually the science behind the methodology, from my reading, is very sound! Most 'sound' research on diabetes reversal in 15 years. And the results are clear and consistent. But 'ends' don't always justify the means. It's the 'means' in this particular 'human experiment' that question. You can also cure cancer by by giving them a 'little higher dose' of chemot than they 'need' -- but that also often 'kills' people. So it's a question of the 'validity' of the means. As has been discussed in the other thread - - Humans can live about 48 days without 'food' - just not without water. I don't think 8 weeks of 600 calories a day is going to kill anyone. :wink:

 

[LittleGreyCat]

Mr. Picky says the poll is a bit confusing.

The subject heading is "will you ASK your doctor for the diet".
The poll heading is "will you SEE your doctor ABOUT the diet".

I wil be discussing the diet with my HCPs but may well not request it.
One big issue is that the diet seems designed for people with high starting weights and may not be appropriate to people who are within normal BMI range.
As posted elsewhere the driver behind this diet seems to be specifically to clear fats from your liver and pancreas.
If you are overweight or obese I guess there is a good chance you have quite a lot of fat in your liver and pancreas as well.
I would like to see more information about fat content of people not classed as "overweight".

Possibly a bit biased to imply that the main alternatives are being happy with alternative approaches.
Could do with a "don't fit the criteria used for the study" option, perhaps?

However, don't be discouraged from posting polls by constructive criticism - this topic is a really fascinating one.

No reason not to post a revised poll with original voters invited to re-submit if this seems suitable.

[Oh, how does the system prevent multiple voting? If it does?]

Cheers

LGC

P.S. I think that all polls should include a "none of the above apply to me" for all the people who would like to vote but can't find an option they agree with. Should give more balance to the results and discourage weighted questions.

 

[daisy1]

With regards to multiple voting, in this type of poll, once you have voted you don't see the buttons any more so you can't vote again. BUT if you are not logged in you can also vote once - so everyone's got 2 votes :lol:

 

[pianoman]

Actually the science behind the methodology, from my reading, is very sound! Most 'sound' research on diabetes reversal in 15 years. And the results are clear and consistent.

So an 8 week starvation diet trial of 11 people -- recently diagnosed with Type 2 -- with 7 of them showing improvement (but only to Pre-Diabetic levels) after 8 to 12 weeks is the "Most 'sound' research on diabetes reversal in 15 years" :shock: gawd 'elp us all :cry:

---
Edited To Add:

Here is a PDF of the Full Article... http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/Lim.pdf

 

[NewdestinyX]

Actually the science behind the methodology, from my reading, is very sound! Most 'sound' research on diabetes reversal in 15 years. And the results are clear and consistent.

So an 8 week starvation diet trial of 11 people -- recently diagnosed with Type 2 -- with 7 of them showing improvement (but only to Pre-Diabetic levels) after 8 to 12 weeks is the "Most 'sound' research on diabetes reversal in 15 years" :shock: gawd 'elp us all :cry:

:lol: :lol: :lol: Fair enough!! You made me laugh there, Pianoman.. I have agreed since the beginning that this is a small trial. There are three threads here discussing it concurrently - so I fear doing more discussing in the poll thread here. But -- what has 'never been found' in ANY trial, of ANY size in the last 15 years for T2's -- are THESE particular results. A change in fat density around organs that even at the 'end' of the trial data taking period STILL hadn't returned to non-diabetic levels. The 'fat around the organs' was 'gone'. That's VERY, VERY compelling stuff to me. Have I misread the study?

Here's the pertinent finding (in bold) -- never before found in T2 diabetic study:

A hierarchy of response was observed, with a very early change in hepatic insulin sensitivity and a slower change in beta cell function. In the first 7 days of the reduced energy intake, fasting blood glucose and hepatic insulin sensitivity fell to normal, and intrahepatic lipid decreased by 30%. Over the 8 weeks of dietary energy restriction, beta cell function increased towards normal and pancreatic fat decreased. Following the intervention, participants gained 3.1±1.0 kg body weight over 12 weeks, but their HbA1c remained steady while the fat content of both pancreas and liver did not increase. The data are consistent with the hypothesis that the abnormalities of insulin secretion and insulin resistance that underlie type 2 diabetes have a single, common aetiology, i.e. excess lipid accumulation in the liver and pancreas [11]. This provides a unified hypothesis to explain a common disease that previously Fig. 3 a Change in first-phase insulin response, and (b) change in pancreas triacylglycerol (TG) content during the 8 week dietary intervention in diabetic individuals (black triangles). White circles indicate the mean for the weight-matched non-diabetic control group.

That's amazing stuff... Yes -- group too small and too short.. but NO return in fat increase around organs even after weight regained.. ?? Compelling find..

 

[pixor]

I find it disappointing that people with no medical background dismiss the findings out of hand.

I have no idea whether this will work long term or not. On the other hand, going on a diet for 8 weeks seems a pretty easy option vs accepting the continuing progression of a condition that will likely shorten our lives and decrease its quality.

I'm into week 2 of this diet, and my blood sugar levels have improved massively. Of course, the "proof of the pudding" will be whether I can maintain sensible blood sugar levels at the end of the diet.

 

[pianoman]

... what has 'never been found' in ANY trial, of ANY size in the last 15 years for T2's -- are THESE particular results. A change in fat density around organs that even at the 'end' of the trial data taking period STILL hadn't returned to non-diabetic levels. The 'fat around the organs' was 'gone'. That's VERY, VERY compelling stuff to me. Have I misread the study?
...

What exactly was it that happened 16 years ago? Did I miss something big?

And can you show me any other studies of any type of interventions on recently diagnosed Type 2 which include measurements of the fat in the liver and pancreas? If not then it's hard to compare isn't it? It's like saying "I must be a genius because I have never failed a MENSA test." :roll:

---

@pixor - Please don't assume that raising questions or concerns about this study is in any way "dismissing it out of hand" if that were really the case why am I even discussing it here? Or providing a link to the full study so that others can also read it.

 

[NewdestinyX]

I find it disappointing that people with no medical background dismiss the findings out of hand.

I have no idea whether this will work long term or not. On the other hand, going on a diet for 8 weeks seems a pretty easy option vs accepting the continuing progression of a condition that will likely shorten our lives and decrease its quality.

Here! Here!, Pixor. Well said!

I'm into week 2 of this diet, and my blood sugar levels have improved massively. Of course, the "proof of the pudding" will be whether I can maintain sensible blood sugar levels at the end of the diet.

We'll all be waiting with 'baited breath' to hear your results. Can you start a thread in the T2 Diabetes Subforum or the DIET forum called 'my journey on this new 600kcal diet' or something like that so we can follow your progress. It will be great to see you thru the 8 weeks and beyond.

What is it you Brits say?.. Brilliant! simply Brilliant!

 

[NewdestinyX]

And can you show me any other studies of any type of interventions on recently diagnosed Type 2 which include measurements of the fat in the liver and pancreas? If not then it's hard to compare isn't it? It's like saying "I must be a genius because I have never failed a MENSA test." :roll:

Not at all. Not the same at all. The 'lack' of any other study with this 'study focus' is EXACTLY what makes the findings so compelling. It has NEVER been studied (according to my personal research over the last two years, which is a extensive but not exhaustive - I'll grant you) -- and that fact (lack of previous findings/study), that the reduction in fat around the organs can happen on this restrictive diet and that it's making such a huge difference in BG level control (which is a bit of a no-brainer) but then that A1c NOT is not re-rising even after weight regain, and organ fat does not reappear after normal diet returns -- ARE the COMPELLING parts. My goodness -- I can't believe anyone wouldn't be able to see it as, at least, compelling - even among 11 individuals... :roll: Have you actually read the entire study, Pianoman? If so -- then you find 'nothing' compelling?