• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Prof Taylor on BBC4 soon this lunchtime

I thought Prof Taylor's approach was a extrapolation from the findings in gastric band patients and I guess the regime works better in those who have weight issues.
It would be nice to find an easy answer, my diabetes is caused by adrenal disease not by visceral fat although carbohydrate not calorie restriction is the answer to the blood glucose roller coaster in my case.
Hence it would seem there is no panacea to put right the problems we have.
Low carb seems to be a more targeted approach because it cuts the need for insulin.
regards
Derek
 
Last edited:
bulkbiker said:
Eat less move more just about sums it up...how original..!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09k0nch#play
He starts about minute 28.00
Click to expand...
He doesn't actually say that in this interview. In this and many others he stresses that there is no need to exercise during the first, ie weight loss part of the diet, but only in the maintenance part. This is because the low cal diet makes people very tired and anyway exercise is often difficult at least until the weight is lost. I am doing very nicely on the "eat less" stage of the diet and am losing weight. I am hoping to get the fatty sludge out of my pancreas and liver. Later on I shall do the maintenance diet to ensure that it doesn't return.
 
bulkbiker said:
As I have said before calorie restriction diets have been practised for many years and have a failure rate of probably more than 90%. I think its a shame that any scepticism concerning Prof Taylor's approach seems to upset you. I'm not sure why it does.
Click to expand...
I think what concerns many people, including myself, is not any scepticism re Prof T,but rather the almost endless dogmatic assertions that only 1 method (lchf) works,which polarises any debate into an adversarial either / or frame
My own belief, and experience, is that both carb and cal restriction (along with identification and treatment of any food intolerances) have their place in both weight loss and glyceamic control, and that they often need to be combined.
You yourself have also reported stalled weight loss on lchf and have now included cal restriction, albeit only for a week, in your quest for further movement
 
@bulkbiker who said-

1. All diets work
2. All diets fail

It matters not what diet anyone follows, at some point weight loss will stall, and perhaps go back up. What I call the hockey stick effect.
 
bulkbiker said:
I think its a shame that any scepticism concerning Prof Taylor's approach seems to upset you. I'm not sure why it does.
Click to expand...

Again, confirmation bias. I really don't think you are seeing reality.

So far I've had to transcribe an interview in order to counteract your misrepresentation of it.

Now I almost feel I need to find all my posts on the subject and collate them here, just to counteract further misrepresentations.

But I won't let you waste any more of my time on this matter. It's like my energy is getting sucked into a black hole.

What you would find, should you care to see it, is that in the vast majority of posts I've made on the subject of the DiRECT study, and other of the things going in in Newcastle and Glasgow, I've expressed a balanced view, and often with reservations and even direct criticisms. This thread being just one example. Reality check: I've probably made as many criticisms as you on the matter recently, and - shock horror - I may be even better at criticising it than you are, because I don't do it with bias.

If you chose to see it. But I can't make you, and I'm done trying.
 
Last edited:
bulkbiker said:
I really would love you to show me where I have ever said that...
Click to expand...
You are one of a seemingly small group of people who give lchf as the answer to nearly every question and criticise anything else
Most people seem much more measured in their responses, or maybe they just post less often
 
bulkbiker said:
As I have said before calorie restriction diets have been practised for many years and have a failure rate of probably more than 90%.
Click to expand...

I'll address this separately since it is actually based on reality.

If you'd listened to the interview in this thread - by that I mean try to interpret it in a balanced way, rather than keeping your ear out for ammunition to throw at it when you 'sum it up' in a mocking way - you'd have heard that the people behind the DiRECT study believe that the maintaining of weight after the weight loss phase is, indeed, a very important and challenging thing. Pretty much *THE* challenge. Hence the mention of regular support from e.g. a practice nurse.

I am sure you are enthusiastic about this and hope it works for people and see it as a positive step. Not that you mentioned it, you were too busy mocking.
 
bulkbiker said:
As I have said before calorie restriction diets have been practised for many years and have a failure rate of probably more than 90%. I think its a shame that any scepticism concerning Prof Taylor's approach seems to upset you. I'm not sure why it does.
Click to expand...

I think this is a little misleading.

Extreme calorie restriction is only a short term hard core approach and is not generally sustainable long term. As far as I can see the Newcastle Diet is an 8 week calorie restriction for rapid weight loss. There is no suggestion that the 800 kcal diet should be a permanent way of eating.

To lose weight and keep it off you have to reduce calories in some way or other. If not, your body will gleefully store the excess as fat.

The strength of LCHF and many other long term eating plans is that they aim to restrict the amount you eat by making you feel full sooner, and eliminating the cravings to over eat you can get with carbohydrate rich diets. LCHF also reduces insulin levels which discourages the storage of fat and encourages the mobilisation and burning of fat.

So IMHO these are calorie restriction diets, but do this in a natural way where you eat until you are full but still consume less calories than you would on a high carbohydrate diet.
 
Tannith said:
He doesn't actually say that in this interview. In this and many others he stresses that there is no need to exercise during the first, ie weight loss part of the diet, but only in the maintenance part. This is because the low cal diet makes people very tired and anyway exercise is often difficult at least until the weight is lost. I am doing very nicely on the "eat less" stage of the diet and am losing weight. I am hoping to get the fatty sludge out of my pancreas and liver. Later on I shall do the maintenance diet to ensure that it doesn't return.
Click to expand...

I've learned that attempting to put right misrepresentations like this is just going to wear me down; bulkbiker can keep churning them out forever it seems. All it takes is a flippant one-liner from him that takes him ten seconds to write and somebody else who cares about reality will need to spend hours putting it right. It's a losing task. I hope you don't get sucked in, but I appreciate you trying.

More importantly than this rubbish, I wish you all the best in your efforts :)
 
I may have missed the point but I don't think those who advocate Professor Taylors restricted shake fest should feel they have to keep defending their position.

Doubtless the same result in some would be achieved by eating every other day. My doctor thought the 800 calorie Newcastle diet was an extreme approach and dangerous for some because they may need hospitalisation.

Sure it wouldn't work for me because I believe that the ratio of nutrient groups in the modern diet is wrong for some who cannot eat a high percentage of carbohydrate.
Some seem to fill their systems with rubbish and do not put on weight.
Perhaps they are evolving into homo carbohydratus? Whereas bulk biker, I and others favour the Neanderthalis side of the family! :)

I think the main thrust of this site now, supports LCHF for T2D. There certainly is no other way for R.H.
regards
D.
 
lindisfel said:
I may have missed the point but I don't think those who advocate Professor Taylors restricted shake fest should feel they have to keep defending their position.

Doubtless the same result in some would be achieved by eating every other day. My doctor thought the 800 calorie Newcastle diet was an extreme approach and dangerous for some because they may need hospitalisation.

Sure it wouldn't work for me because I believe that the ratio of nutrient groups in the modern diet is wrong for some who cannot eat a high percentage of carbohydrate.
Some seem to fill their systems with rubbish and do not put on weight.
Perhaps they are evolving into homo carbohydratus? Whereas bulk biker, I and others favour the Neanderthalis side of the family! :)

I think the main thrust of this site now, supports LCHF for T2D. There certainly is no other way for R.H.
regards
D.
Click to expand...

'Homo Carbohydratus' that moniker is truly worth a trophy. ;)
 
lindisfel said:
I may have missed the point but I don't think those who advocate Professor Taylors restricted shake fest should feel they have to keep defending their position.

Doubtless the same result in some would be achieved by eating every other day. My doctor thought the 800 calorie Newcastle diet was an extreme approach and dangerous for some because they may need hospitalisation.

Sure it wouldn't work for me because I believe that the ratio of nutrient groups in the modern diet is wrong for some who cannot eat a high percentage of carbohydrate.
Some seem to fill their systems with rubbish and do not put on weight.
Perhaps they are evolving into homo carbohydratus? Whereas bulk biker, I and others favour the Neanderthalis side of the family! :)

I think the main thrust of this site now, supports LCHF for T2D. There certainly is no other way for R.H.
regards
D.
Click to expand...

Haha! Agreed with Guzzler, Homo Carbohydratus needs recognition :)

Thanks for the balanced post, what a relief. Well there are actually lots of balanced posts here, which is reassuring!

As someone who's been posting very irritatedly in this thread, I feel I need to point out that I've never advocated the ND.

My irritated postings in response to bulkbiker's postings are because I'm an advocate of reality, and presenting things, and people, in a fair and unbiased way.
 
Boo1979 said:
You yourself have also reported stalled weight loss on lchf and have now included cal restriction, albeit only for a week, in your quest for further movement
Click to expand...

After losing 30% of my body weight though... so its hardly surprising that I have a plateau here and there.. If Prof Taylor was correct and a 15kg loss causes remission what should a 45kg loss have done? And the vast majority of that weight was lost without counting a single calorie. I do not at the moment use any calorie restriction just eat until full which keeps my weight stable maintaining the loss.. the only reason I record now is out of interest and yes I can eat 3000 calories a day and still be lighter the next morning as well as heavier after 1500 calories..
 
AdamJames said:
Haha! Agreed with Guzzler, Homo Carbohydratus needs recognition :)

Thanks for the balanced post, what a relief. Well there are actually lots of balanced posts here, which is reassuring!

As someone who's been posting very irritatedly in this thread, I feel I need to point out that I've never advocated the ND.

My irritated postings in response to bulkbiker's postings are because I'm an advocate of reality, and presenting things, and people, in a fair and unbiased way.
Click to expand...

Maybe you'd like to go back and read some of the things you have written about me in this and other threads... fair and unbiased? Also some of the posts you may have edited where I think you called my attitude "disgusting"?
I have presented a view, with which you disagree, politely (although maybe in a rather dogmatic fashion, such is my writing style). I have never however resorted to calling you names..
 
bulkbiker said:
Maybe you'd like to go back and read some of the things you have written about me in this and other threads... fair and unbiased? Also some of the posts you may have edited where I think you called my attitude "disgusting"?
I have presented a view, with which you disagree, politely (although maybe in a rather dogmatic fashion, such is my writing style). I have never however resorted to calling you names..
Click to expand...
Apologies you haven't edited your post it is still here on this thread..
 
bulkbiker said:
After losing 30% of my body weight though... so its hardly surprising that I have a plateau here and there.. If Prof Taylor was correct and a 15kg loss causes remission what should a 45kg loss have done? And the vast majority of that weight was lost without counting a single calorie. I do not at the moment use any calorie restriction just eat until full which keeps my weight stable maintaining the loss.. the only reason I record now is out of interest and yes I can eat 3000 calories a day and still be lighter the next morning as well as heavier after 1500 calories..
Click to expand...
I on the other hand lost 61/2 stone in 6 months followed by another 21/2 stone over the next few years ( which apparently equates to over 40% of my starting 22 .5 stone heaviest weight) and have maintained that loss. All achieved over 15 years prior to my diabetes diaggnosis, all without counting calories, drinking a shake or restricting carbs. Hence I have no time for claims that lchf or loss of x% of weight are the panacea for T2 diabetes or that either lchf or vl cal are the holy grail of weight loss. Both will help some, both will fail some and claims to the contrary imho are blinkered bull ****
 
bulkbiker said:
Maybe you'd like to go back and read some of the things you have written about me in this and other threads... fair and unbiased? Also some of the posts you may have edited where I think you called my attitude "disgusting"?
I have presented a view, with which you disagree, politely (although maybe in a rather dogmatic fashion, such is my writing style). I have never however resorted to calling you names..
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm pretty sure I've been fair and unbiased about you. *You* go back and find the posts you believe you have read where I have been otherwise. I've done enough collating of info for you. Please present your results here, I'd be interested. Until you do that, you have misrepresented me again.

I've only edited one post in this thread where I respond to you, and I didn't edit my words, I edited the bit from your post to which I was responding, to make it clear what I was responding to. Just to put that one to bed.

I *do* think it's disgusting to mock an approach which may be able to bring great benefit to a great many people, and to regularly present it in the most negative way you can.

I'm not saying *you* are disgusting and I'm not calling you names. But there I go again, getting sucked into the black hole of having to deal with your word-play and defending against your misrepresentations.
 
Back
Top