What Would Count as a Cure for Type 2?

[CherryAA]

Try this
http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/9789241599979/en/

There are several dozen peer reviewed academic papers listed at the end which have been used as evidence for what has been stated here.
No big business or big pharma stands to benefit from the recommendations, only the people who take it into account.

Physical inactivity (6% of all deaths) is the 4th highest cause of global mortality after high blood pressure (13%), smoking (9%), and high blood glucose (also 6%). As increased activity can reduce blood pressure and blood glucose it may be the most important of all.

I'm afraid when confronted with this type of report my own reaction is pretty much "bleh" . I very much doubt there are true " randomised control trials" of people being made to sit still versus move over periods of years that result in statistically significant death rate differences. The fact is that the" eat less / move more campaign" has been peddling the news that we are all fat lazy slobs not able to deal with our appetites or get off our chairs for decades and WHO is just as culpable in that as anyone else. Big foods and big pharma both stand to gain from the recommendation. Why has coca cola been allowed to sponsor the Olympic Games ? because it allows the continuation of the myth that you can eat what you like - i.e. our products, as long as you exercise more.

Currently WHO still sits behind global dietary guidelines that are causing ill health and death in thousands if not millions. While ever we believe in this propaganda it allows the food and pharma industries to carry on peddling the rubbish they do and for the food industry to get away with the "personal sloth" hypothesis.

If everyone sat on their backsides, refused to moved and just ate good quality foods, we would soon see just how important diet is versus movement. In practice this latter scenario is never going to happen, because actually if people eat good quality foods then they will WANT to move more if they can because moving is fun. However for morbidly obese people starting on this journey ALL that matters is that you get started, move towards eating the right foods, BEGIN the journey, everything else will fall into place including exercise commensurate with your capabilities. No-one should be put off from starting because having spent years being unable to move much, they now think that somehow unless they can not only change their diet radically, but also change their personal exercise habits radically at the same time, they cannot succeed. Nothing can be further from truth, every single day that someone manages to keep on the nutrition journey gets them closer to the health benefits that they are looking for and the ability to get started on that moving more route. For a start all that is required is the diet, and if you can manage some gentle walking too then that's great, but no-one should be out off from starting because they believe that without exercise nutritional change is pointless.

basically if you want to get started, just follow this simple guide, as you get into it sure, find out more about recipes, ketones, exercise etc etc.

but just doing this for your food will make a huge difference

 

[kokhongw]

If everyone sat on their backsides, refused to moved and just ate good quality foods, we would soon see just how important diet is versus movement.

That is pretty much what I had done over the last 2 years...no exercise, no will power...

 

[CherryAA]

That is pretty much what I had done over the last 2 years...no exercise, no will power...

I wear a 24/7 monitor - I have watched my blood sugars on days when I walk 20,000 steps and days when I walk 200. When I've tried running 5 km, and when I've swum a mile, when I've watched TV or played piano. During all of those activities it has become clear that two things are true. a) when i swim my blood sugar comes down a bit when I get out - which then goes back to where it started as soon as I've warmed back up and b) my blood sugar reliably goes down when I sit down again on my return from exercise.
I love getting out and about, I love being able to do some exercise, but that is a result of the nutritional changes I made, not a driver behind why I could make those nutritional changes. Diet trumps exercise in my book - big time.

 

[kokhongw]

I wear a 24/7 monitor - I have watched my blood sugars on days when I walk 20,000 steps and days when I walk 200. When I've tried running 5 km, and when I've swum a mile, when I've watched TV or played piano. During all of those activities it has become clear that two things are true. a) when i swim my blood sugar comes down a bit when I get out - which then goes back to where it started as soon as I've warmed back up and b) my blood sugar reliably goes down when I sit down again on my return from exercise.
I love getting out and about, I love being able to do some exercise, but that is a result of the nutritional changes I made, not a driver behind why I could make those nutritional changes. Diet trumps exercise in my book - big time.

When I was diagnosed with HbA1c 11% my father was already bed ridden after 30 years of struggling with T2D. I simply wanted to find out if diet change alone could make a difference, less than 1000 steps a day, no weight loss...but normalized glucose level with FBG consistently around 5.5mmol. Unfortunately he was too far down the T2D path and passed on.

If you can exercise and build muscles, that would definitely help. There is no question about the benefits of exercise. But for those who cannot exercise, dietary modification is a game changer.

 

[Grateful]

This has been a robust and very interesting discussion. Perhaps I should clarify: from my point of view it is clear that no existing treatment "cures" Type 2 diabetes. That's why I asked the question, I was interested in what -- in the future -- would count as a "cure." It would need to enable people to partake of a "normal" diet with what that entails in terms of carbohydrates. Clearly the definition of "normal" is key, and I do agree that the modern Western diet in particular is too heavily weighted toward carbs (and toward too much food -- calories -- in general).

Viewed from my limited perspective (diagnosed T2 less than a year ago, having known nothing about the disease previously) it seems that the triggers of T2 are still incredibly controversial. It seems to go back principally to insulin resistance, therefore "nailing" the cause of IR is the key.

I am 60 years old but weirdly optimistic that a cure for T2D will be developed during my remaining lifetime. Too late to benefit me greatly, or many of the people on this forum. But I am hopeful. Obviously I also hope that we (the population at large) will all benefit from better diets and lifestyles in any case -- although current trends look pretty bad, unfortunately!

 

[Deleted member 371625]

That is not what the report you linked to says.
It is a risk factor not a cause of death.. very few people (if any) have died from physical inactivity.
I agree that physical activity can assist in improving health but to claim it is a major cause of Type 2 is just silly.
Tim Noakes for example.. the running expert and Type 2 ..did his inactivity cause his type 2?
Sir Steve Redgrave that lazy couch potato...all the athletes that @CherryAA showed the results for.. no it is all diet and for the most part over indulging in carbohydrates.

Apologies for my mistype.

It is merely one of the most serious risk factors in disease and mortality, increasing risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. I guess that makes it okay to ignore then.

Inactivity increases chances of ill health, to doesn't make it certain.
Activity decreases the chances, but as with the examples you gave, decreasing the chances doesn't eliminate the possibility.

 

[Guzzler]

Apologies for my mistype.

It is merely one of the most serious risk factors in disease and mortality, increasing risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. I guess that makes it okay to ignore then.

Inactivity increases chances of ill health, to doesn't make it certain.
Activity decreases the chances, but as with the examples you gave, decreasing the chances doesn't eliminate the possibility.

You have chosen to ignore mention of the fact that athletes sometimes go on to develope Diabetes. Perhaps you might like to view Prof. Tim Noakes' lectures on youtube, I am sure you will find them enlightening.

 

[Deleted member 371625]

You have chosen to ignore mention of the fact that athletes sometimes go on to develope Diabetes. Perhaps you might like to view Prof. Tim Noakes' lectures on youtube, I am sure you will find them enlightening.

Did you read what I said?

Physical activity decreases the chances of ill health, but as with the examples given (e.g. Redgrave), it does not eliminate the chances entirely.

In what way does this 'ignore mention of the fact that athletes sometimes develop diabetes'?
People who are physically active are less likely to become diabetic. This is not rocket science and is not disputed anywhere in the world of reputable science. It does not mean that being active means you can eat whatever you want, and I have never said that. It does not mean that it reduces chances to zero and I haven't said that either.

The 'my granddad smoked 60 a day and lived until he was 100 ' argument may be true but doesn't alter the fact that smoking increases chances of early death. He just got lucky due to genetic factors and pure chance. In the same way some athletes just get unlucky for the same reason.

 

[D@sty]

I have normal blood glucose levels and am not on any meds. I consider that cured.

Hi
I was wondering if you saw an inital spike in blood sugar after you stopped metformin and if so how long did it last before it normalised.
I managed to get my hba1c down to 38 on a meds + keto diet. Two weeks ago I packed in my meds and my b.s. has increased. I intend to maintain my keto diet without meds for a two month period before another hba1c . Typical meter readings are now 9/10 fasting and 8 pre meal. Not drastic but a bit alarming.

 

[Guzzler]

Did you read what I said?

Physical activity decreases the chances of ill health, but as with the examples given (e.g. Redgrave), it does not eliminate the chances entirely.

In what way does this 'ignore mention of the fact that athletes sometimes develop diabetes'?
People who are physically active are less likely to become diabetic. This is not rocket science and is not disputed anywhere in the world of reputable science. It does not mean that being active means you can eat whatever you want, and I have never said that. It does not mean that it reduces chances to zero and I haven't said that either.

The 'my granddad smoked 60 a day and lived until he was 100 ' argument may be true but doesn't alter the fact that smoking increases chances of early death. He just got lucky due to genetic factors and pure chance. In the same way some athletes just get unlucky for the same reason.

This has been a long thread and perhaps I missed some of which you wrote but that should not be reason enough for snippiness. I will say again that to prioritise excercise over diet in the case of people who have T2 and to state that inactivity leads to a greater risk of T2 is to feed into the slothful gluttonous myth portrayed by the media. I can see that the excercise argument will go around in circles so will leave it at that.

 

[CherryAA]

This has been a robust and very interesting discussion. Perhaps I should clarify: from my point of view it is clear that no existing treatment "cures" Type 2 diabetes. That's why I asked the question, I was interested in what -- in the future -- would count as a "cure." It would need to enable people to partake of a "normal" diet with what that entails in terms of carbohydrates. Clearly the definition of "normal" is key, and I do agree that the modern Western diet in particular is too heavily weighted toward carbs (and toward too much food -- calories -- in general).

Viewed from my limited perspective (diagnosed T2 less than a year ago, having known nothing about the disease previously) it seems that the triggers of T2 are still incredibly controversial. It seems to go back principally to insulin resistance, therefore "nailing" the cause of IR is the key.

I am 60 years old but weirdly optimistic that a cure for T2D will be developed during my remaining lifetime. Too late to benefit me greatly, or many of the people on this forum. But I am hopeful. Obviously I also hope that we (the population at large) will all benefit from better diets and lifestyles in any case -- although current trends look pretty bad, unfortunately!

Personal viewpoint is that there is no " cure" for eating a modern western diet. The cure is in changing the modern western diet to one which people can eat without damaging their health of which diabetes and obesity are merely two of the negative results out of a myriad of others. The only difference between diagnosed diabetics and most everyone else, is that w know we have a problem and someone put a name to it - albeit the wrong name.

Maybe if they started diagnosing the disease of hyperinsulinaemia instead, we would be catching many more of the people currently oblivious to the damage the food thrust upon them is doing.

 

[Deleted member 371625]

I'm afraid when confronted with this type of report my own reaction is pretty much "bleh" . I very much doubt there are true " randomised control trials" of people being made to sit still versus move over periods of years that result in statistically significant death rate differences. The fact is that the" eat less / move more campaign" has been peddling the news that we are all fat lazy slobs not able to deal with our appetites or get off our chairs for decades and WHO is just as culpable in that as anyone else. Big foods and big pharma both stand to gain from the recommendation. Why has coca cola been allowed to sponsor the Olympic Games ? because it allows the continuation of the myth that you can eat what you like - i.e. our products, as long as you exercise more.

Currently WHO still sits behind global dietary guidelines that are causing ill health and death in thousands if not millions. While ever we believe in this propaganda it allows the food and pharma industries to carry on peddling the rubbish they do and for the food industry to get away with the "personal sloth" hypothesis.

If everyone sat on their backsides, refused to moved and just ate good quality foods, we would soon see just how important diet is versus movement. In practice this latter scenario is never going to happen, because actually if people eat good quality foods then they will WANT to move more if they can because moving is fun. However for morbidly obese people starting on this journey ALL that matters is that you get started, move towards eating the right foods, BEGIN the journey, everything else will fall into place including exercise commensurate with your capabilities. No-one should be put off from starting because having spent years being unable to move much, they now think that somehow unless they can not only change their diet radically, but also change their personal exercise habits radically at the same time, they cannot succeed. Nothing can be further from truth, every single day that someone manages to keep on the nutrition journey gets them closer to the health benefits that they are looking for and the ability to get started on that moving more route. For a start all that is required is the diet, and if you can manage some gentle walking too then that's great, but no-one should be out off from starting because they believe that without exercise nutritional change is pointless.

basically if you want to get started, just follow this simple guide, as you get into it sure, find out more about recipes, ketones, exercise etc etc.

but just doing this for your food will make a huge difference

I really wasn't sure how to answer this. Judging by its popularity, it is pretty clear that we really are in a post truth era where anything that is said by experts and scientists is treated with such scorn. Is the only truth to be found on social media and web forums?
My 5 year old, when told something he doesn't like sticks his fingers in his ears , closes his eyes and says 'bleh, bleh , bleh' but I would expect adults to engage in debate instead.

1) If you read the research you will see that it is an observational study, asking people about past behaviour. A cohort study, like you describe where some are asked to exercise and some are told not to would be unethical ( and illegal in the UK ) as people would have to be asked to do something (eliminate physical activity) which is KNOWN to be harmful.

2) WHO advocates a diet that is moderate in terms of carbs, fat & protein and has been found through extensive research to be the most advantageous to the greatest number of people. This should be combined with physical activity (4 or 5 short walks a week is all that is required, not marathons or excessive gym time) for optimal health.
Processed food is strongly advised against , as are all form of refined sugar.
There is absolutely nothing here at all to support big food and big pharma. the very opposite in fact. The current western diet is strongly advised against.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/

I have included links to information on diet and the risks of eating processed meat (and red meat to a lesser extent) though as you seem to regard all research as questionable without even reading it I doubt that this will be of any use.

As said before I have no issue with any adult making a choice to do whatever they wish. I would rather they made an informed choice in possession of all the facts but that would be a persons own choice. What I have a problem with is when people advise others to pursue a course of action without giving them as much relevant information, especially as this is not based on the best available science.
There appears to be a belief on this forum that eating large quantities of animal fat is entirely harmless and taking no exercise is without its own risks. It may be that these risks are less than the risk of high BG/insulin but there are risks just the same.

Wishing a high fat / low activity life to be harmless does not make it so. Live it by all means but please don't advise other to do so.

 

[Grateful]

There appears to be a belief on this forum that eating large quantities of animal fat is entirely harmless and taking no exercise is without its own risks. It may be that these risks are less than the risk of high BG/insulin but there are risks just the same.

I don't share the view that you have described. I have gone low-carb but only moderately increased fats and meat. I continue to use "low fat" versions of common foods despite the opprobrium they sometimes generate (perhaps rightly, since you could describe them as "processed"). Apparently my diet is sustainable since I have now managed it for eleven months. So far the only (painful and annoying) apparent side effect of the diet has been a couple of bouts of kidney stones, requiring treatment of some kind (am working with a specialist to try to figure that one out).

Concerning exercise, following my diagnosis I greatly increased exercise although it is still "mild" by some people's standards (three miles of brisk walking per day, and home exercises most days). Studies have actually been conducted showing that exercise does make a small, but useful, difference in lowering BG in diabetics over time -- however the effect seems to be far smaller than diet.

The main reason I stepped up the exercise was that, as someone with diabetes, I wanted to be healthier in general, so that I can more easily "ride out" future illnesses (whether connected with diabetes or not). Prior to diagnosis, I was fit, but very sedentary most of the time, with physical activity concentrated into holidays and long walks from time to time. I have not found that the new "regular exercise routine" makes me "feel better in general" (a common thing that is said by keen exercisers) except in two respects: I am sleeping better, and my nighttime leg cramps have largely gone away. I also ended up having sessions with a physiotherapist because the increased exercise triggered various aches and pains in my right hip area, and have tried to continue doing those exercises at home.

 

[Deleted member 371625]

I don't share the view that you have described. I have gone low-carb but only moderately increased fats and meat. I continue to use "low fat" versions of common foods despite the opprobrium they sometimes generate (perhaps rightly, since you could describe them as "processed"). Apparently my diet is sustainable since I have now managed it for eleven months. So far the only (painful and annoying) apparent side effect of the diet has been a couple of bouts of kidney stones, requiring treatment of some kind (am working with a specialist to try to figure that one out).

Concerning exercise, following my diagnosis I greatly increased exercise although it is still "mild" by some people's standards (three miles of brisk walking per day, and home exercises most days). Studies have actually been conducted showing that exercise does make a small, but useful, difference in lowering BG in diabetics over time -- however the effect seems to be far smaller than diet.

The main reason I stepped up the exercise was that, as someone with diabetes, I wanted to be healthier in general, so that I can more easily "ride out" future illnesses (whether connected with diabetes or not). Prior to diagnosis, I was fit, but very sedentary most of the time, with physical activity concentrated into holidays and long walks from time to time. I have not found that the new "regular exercise routine" makes me "feel better in general" (a common thing that is said by keen exercisers) except in two respects: I am sleeping better, and my nighttime leg cramps have largely gone away. I also ended up having sessions with a physiotherapist because the increased exercise triggered various aches and pains in my right hip area, and have tried to continue doing those exercises at home.

I'm not too different, moderate fat (70g/day ish) and carbs (150g/day ish) and moderate exercise. The exercise isn't so much to deal with BG but for general health, though it appears to be beneficial for insulin resistance in the medium to long term.

 

[Grateful]

I'm not too different, moderate fat (70g/day ish) and carbs (150g/day ish) and moderate exercise. The exercise isn't so much to deal with BG but for general health, though it appears to be beneficial for insulin resistance in the medium to long term.

Your HbA1c numbers (both at diagnosis, and one year later) are almost identical to mine. The main difference is that you are eating a lot more carbs than I am, started from a higher weight, and lost a lot more weight. I would probably find it hard to follow your "moderate carb" example (I am not good at "moderation" in general) but still find it encouraging as an example! Especially since you started out on insulin and were able to stop the insulin after only seven weeks!

 

[Guzzler]

What puzzles me is why the Insulin Assay is mostly ignored by the establishment, after all, the data has been arround for a long time. While the test is not a cure surely it could save money, time and misery by flagging up those who show the earliest signs/indicators. However, unless big changes are made in the education of HCPs and their patients, and even bigger changes in how Big Food manipulates us in our dietary choices then I suppose the test would be purely academic.

 

[Deleted member 371625]

Your HbA1c numbers (both at diagnosis, and one year later) are almost identical to mine. The main difference is that you are eating a lot more carbs than I am, started from a higher weight, and lost a lot more weight. I would probably find it hard to follow your "moderate carb" example (I am not good at "moderation" in general) but still find it encouraging as an example! Especially since you started out on insulin and were able to stop the insulin after only seven weeks!

I was told later that the insulin was a sub therapeutic dose, and that it was prescribed so that I could also get a meter to self test.
I'm not sure how well behaved I would be without a meter, it would be very easy to have a slice of bread and butter when it came straight out of the oven or to have seven roast potatoes instead of two. Being tested every 6 months only or not at all? no, every day for me, it keeps me honest.

 

[Bluetit1802]

I'm not sure how well behaved I would be without a meter, it would be very easy to have a slice of bread and butter when it came straight out of the oven or to have seven roast potatoes instead of two. Being tested every 6 months only or not at all? no, every day for me, it keeps me honest.

Same with me. Exactly.

 

[Daphne917]

If I did manage to induce my own Type 2, which I strongly suspect (though my mum has it and my father probably had it - he certainly died of a commonly associated illness), then I suspect a central problem for me was alcohol.

Not only is it not a "nutrient", but it is packed with energy, gives the body so much to deal with that it can't properly process real food at the same time, and gives me a ravenous appetite for all foods, both during (= crisps and pies) and for 24 hours afterwards (huge amounts of carbs, fat & protein).

Mine is probably genetic as my maternal grandfather, mother and one of my brothers had/have T2 diabetes

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

Hi
I was wondering if you saw an inital spike in blood sugar after you stopped metformin and if so how long did it last before it normalised.
I managed to get my hba1c down to 38 on a meds + keto diet. Two weeks ago I packed in my meds and my b.s. has increased. I intend to maintain my keto diet without meds for a two month period before another hba1c . Typical meter readings are now 9/10 fasting and 8 pre meal. Not drastic but a bit alarming.

No, I didn't. Those levels are too high. You may want to rethink going off your meds.