What Would Count as a Cure for Type 2?

[CherryAA]

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.

I think you are rather missing the point about why we are making a fuss about your post.
To be clear, I love exercise, I love the ability to exercise, I love that I can now exercise and I have every intention of doing more of it . It makes me feel more supple, it makes me happier and in general terms its an all round good thing. There is no dispute at all about that. I am also clear that it will probably help me lead a happier life whether longer or not. I hope everyone here who has the ability to, takes the time to do as much of it as they personally can, including wiggling round in a wheelchair if they can.

I also agree that processed food of all kinds is to be viewed with suspicion.

I don't buy the red meat is bad lobby, not because I have not read about it, but because having read the various claims of both sides I have personally chosen to side with the carnivores - each to their own on that subject,
You may find this particular study interesting. Far too often research makes assumptions about one thing driven off associations from two entirely different things. https://deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

We have lived for many years with the heart lipid hypothesis and the resulting LDL cholesterol debacle, driven off these very same -Observational studies. The state of nutrition research is actually very poor compared to many other sciences.

There is also a substantial body of research around the mechanics of weight loss, which suggests that actually exercising is not necessarily a good weight loss tool. The reason for that is that for many people the increase in appetite more than offsets the calories expended and because it takes very little food to outweigh the benefits of the exercise, many people find that adding exercise to a dieting regime in the early days can be counterproductive not least because at that stage people have very little concept of just how few calories exercise uses, but the actual effort of doing the exercise is so great that its all too easy to rapidly slow down weight loss by exercising and then having a snack before making these connections.
Once for example one has started to become fat adapted, it becomes a lot easier to carry out exercise without immediately turning to more food which is a typical process when still in high carb mode,

There is a lot of research currently coming to light which shows that it is substantial weight loss that is the key to improving diabetes markers.

It is also the case the many people suffering diabetes, particularly at high levels of blood sugar and possibly high obesity will find it very difficult to exercise initially.

The " eat less / move more- your obesity is your own fault through gluttony and sloth", has made very little progress in solving the problems being created by current westerns style diets ,. That particular guilt is one that I and no doubt the majority of people on here also feel in their gut is true no matter ho much we research the metabolic impacts of our situation.

The very good news about all of this , is that because diet is so influential in recovery, if someone cannot actually exercise in the beginning, either through temporary or permanent mobility problems, that does not prevent them improving their health substantially via diet. Telling such a person that he cannot possibly improve his health without exercise is not particularly helpful. I doubt there is anyone on the planet who actually thinks that being a couch potato is better for his health than moving. There are many people on this website with mobility problems and all of them are doing their very best to improve their personal situations in their own difficult circumstances. My hat goes off to all of them.

My advice is simply - step one - don't panic- you can make a huge difference, step two start to get the nutrition right - follow the simple chart until you have had chance to find out more - look up low carb, look up diet doctor .com you will probably progress naturally to keto, to intermittent fasting. Along this journey you are going to start to want to do more and that's great, the sooner the better but the first step is simply getting started and not letting yourself be frightened by what seems to be the sheer enormity of the task ahead which for some will be huge. ( me included )

 

[CherryAA]

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.

This truly is one of the biggest mysteries of the whole thing. Kraft made the connections between diabetes , insulin and heart disease years ago. No -one appears to dispute his work, just ignore it. It makes no sense unless one subscribes to the " conspiracy" theory - who has what to gain by actually shutting down insulin generation by reducing carbs and processed foods?
One tries not to be a conspiracy theorist - but sometimes its hard to see what else it can actually be.

High insulin has been shown to be present in practically all diseases - ( whether cause OR effect) if this were AIDS the newspapers would be full of it and the studies to cure it on a daily basis - ditto ebola virus, or bird flue - Yet even now, even with the current popularity of ketogenic diets - everyone fights shy of actually mentioning the word "hyperinsulinaemia" or suggesting testing insulin.

And despite the fact that its now utterly clear that diabetes is reversible though weight loss via whatever method with the most efficacious being shown as low carb, mediterranean or intermittent fasting - we are STILL in the situation where the keto diet is pronounced the WORST diet of 2017.

What actually gives ???

 

[Deleted member 371625]

I don't buy the red meat is bad lobby, not because I have not read about it, but because having read the various claims of both sides I have personally chosen to side with the carnivores - each to their own on that subject,
You may find this particular study interesting. Far too often research makes assumptions about one thing driven off associations from two entirely different things. https://deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

I am very well aware of Ms. Minger's blog, and it's criticism of Colin Campbell's work, which I have read. On the one hand, a peer reviewed work carried out at Oxford and Cornell Universities, two of the world's top research establishments, by a group of extremely well qualified and experienced scientists.
Against this, opinion by an inexperienced non scientist (English is her subject if I remember right), with no knowledge of epidemiology or statistical analysis, the relevant tools to understand the research.

It is possible to find opinion online to support any opinion that a person may hold. This shouldn't give it validity.
As I have said before, we appear to live in a post truth age where people decide what they believe, then look for evidence to support their own point of view. You can find 'evidence' that the moon landings were a hoax, that the royal family assassinated the Princess of Wales, or that George W and the Israelis demolished the buildings on 911, anything you like really
Two conflicting opinions do not have equal weight, you need to examine the evidence.
Have you read Campbell's book? I have, it is well researched, clearly written and compelling. He is the first to admit, as any scientist would, that further evidence may arise to contradict his evidence. However, this will need to be a little more compelling than the uneducated (in a scientific sense) opinion of Ms. Minger.
This is a little shorter
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/...campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html

 

[CherryAA]

I am very well aware of Ms. Minger's blog, and it's criticism of Colin Campbell's work, which I have read. On the one hand, a peer reviewed work carried out at Oxford and Cornell Universities, two of the world's top research establishments, by a group of extremely well qualified and experienced scientists.
Against this, opinion by an inexperienced non scientist (English is her subject if I remember right), with no knowledge of epidemiology or statistical analysis, the relevant tools to understand the research.

It is possible to find opinion online to support any opinion that a person may hold. This shouldn't give it validity.
As I have said before, we appear to live in a post truth age where people decide what they believe, then look for evidence to support their own point of view. You can find 'evidence' that the moon landings were a hoax, that the royal family assassinated the Princess of Wales, or that George W and the Israelis demolished the buildings on 911, anything you like really
Two conflicting opinions do not have equal weight, you need to examine the evidence.
Have you read Campbell's book? I have, it is well researched, clearly written and compelling. He is the first to admit, as any scientist would, that further evidence may arise to contradict his evidence. However, this will need to be a little more compelling than the uneducated (in a scientific sense) opinion of Ms. Minger.
This is a little shorter
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/...campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html

Unfortunately in the field of nutrition and science at the moment all bets are off. there is too much information coming out of non scientists and non medics - people like dave Feldman and Ivor Cummins who as engineers are changing the face of understanding about how the human body works.

I have no particular axe to grind for or against either Mr Campbell or Ms Minger and in terms of my preconceived biases,its fair to say that prior to the diagnosis, I was utterly oblivous to any preference for anything - vegetarian/non.vegetarian. What I have realised is that I have learned far more from the none medical profession- or the medical profession acting outside its normal remit ( such as Gary Fettke) than the official papers being produced. I have generally found that a person doing research with their own health at stake ( eg Dave Feldman, Ivor Cummings and even myself - ar elikely to give me more insights into my own situation than any number of official sounding papers.

I guess at the point where Mr Campbell makes the statement

"Denise, that correlation of wheat flour and heart disease is interesting but I am not aware of any prior and biologically plausible and convincing evidence to support an hypothesis that wheat causes these diseases, as you infer."I rather decide that perhaps Mr Campbell may be letting his vegetarian bias into play.

We as diabetics are known to suffer much higher rates of heart disease than the rest of the population. We also know that what flours cause massive spikes i our blood glucose. We also know that eating meat does no such thing. All of these things may be pure coincidence, however for the time being I will stick with my own n=1 data, avoid wheat, increase meat, reduce blood sugars , control diabetes and hope that that of itself also reduces my risk of heart disease. The lobbyists/ researchers etc can do what they wish with their research, no-one can overcome the evidence of my own eyes as regards myself.

 

[CherryAA]

Low Carb Dr. T‏@TroKalayjian


"People always telling me: “we can’t exercise the way you do” My answer: I lost my first 80lbs with diet. My only exercise for nearly a year was leisurely walking on a treadmill 3/4x per week while I binged watched Netflix."

pretty much my thoughts

 

[AdamJames]

And despite the fact that its now utterly clear that diabetes is reversible though weight loss via whatever method with the most efficacious being shown as low carb, mediterranean or intermittent fasting

This isn't a question to form part of the debate, just a question from curiosity - are there comparative studies on this? And do you mean the diets you suggest are the best at causing weight loss, or diabetes reversal? A lot of people seem to think the method of weight loss is unimportant when it comes to diabetes reversal, but I'm not convinced of that, hence the question. Could you give me some links to get started? Thanks.

 

[CherryAA]

Hi Adam,
As far as I know at present there have been no " clinical " trials that specifically pit mediterranean diet, low carb and fasting against each other to derive which is the most efficacious at driving either weight loss or diabetes reversal.

Your question is a complex one and frankly I've read hundreds of studies to form my opinions so which precise one to show you is tough! instead I can point you where to look .

The best way to get a good handle on the latest research is to join twitter and follow some of the leading lights - Tim Noakes, Ivor Cumming, Sara Halstadt, Dr David Unwin, Dr Robert Lustwig, Dave Feldman, They regularly post up to date research on the various methods and ideas.

Fundamentally though T2 diabetes is a disease of carbohydrate intolerance. Therefore from my perspective no matter which dietary route you prefer, doing that dietary route using as low carbs as possible should be the best answer - so either keto, low carb, VLC using low carb ingredients or IF using low carb foods when eating - should give the best possible starting result and the choice of which one of those should really be down to which one you can personally stand the best.

Diabetes reversal and weight loss : There are a lot of researchers making the basic presumption that weight loss is fundamental to diabetes reversal. I am not personally convinced that that is true. Instead it seems to me that one can dramatically improve Hba1c simply by cutting carbs - even if weight remains the same. That has certainly been my experience over the last 12 months. It is also supported by the fact that non-obese people with diabetes can still control diabetes through diet even though they do not need to lose weight. I think that what happens when diet is switched to low carb, is that even if there is no actual calorie deficit what you do see is a gradual redistribution of weight from visceral fat to elsewhere. i.e you still improve metabolic health whilst being no thinner overall .

tbc

 

[CherryAA]

I have not seen clinical studies of this process - i.e. Hba1c control whilst slim, but I think there are a few examples of people here in that boat. (including my continuing hba1C improvement with no further weight loss)

Choice of diet :
Because of the starting presumption that losing weight is fundamental to the process if one is already obese, there is then huge emphasis on losing weight by any means. With two main camps - Very low calories and low carb=> ketogenic.

Personal view is that these two camps are not really that much different - a very low calorie diet is ketogenic even if high carb, any diet in which the total amount eaten is so low that your body has to move to using some fats will become ketogenic if taken far enough. The VLC camp have had great success using shakes and report that " surprisingly" patients can live with this diet, In my view that is because those patients are experiencing exactly the same benefit as they would if following a traditional low carb. keto diet - i.e. ketosis stops hunger. Again in this forum we have afficionados of both VLC and low carb/ketogenic. Personal view would be given that both seem to work, if I was going to try a very low calorie route , I would go for very low carb. AND very low calorie and try to take the best of both worlds. This is particularly intriguing because on as little as 1,000 low carb. calories its possible to get close to 100% of nutrients - no way this can be done on a VLC diet which included much carbs unless its just through powders which by its nature is not sustainable.

Very Low Calorie - Dr Roy Taylor is your man on this route, he reported only this week that he believed that the benefits that came from his VLC protocol could be achieved/ maintained through continuation of low carb, Mediterranean or intermittent fasting protocols - i.e. his start point is lose the weight and this will give the Hba1C benefits. Dr Taylor is clearly still very plugged into the UK establishment, so lots of his work tries to reconcile what he does with the " healthy eating plate" this focus has informed many of his recommendations until recently especially about the post VLC phase so his actual statements this week regarding low carb and IF do now represent a significant step towards the low carb community.

https://idmprogram.com/videos/

Intermittent fasting - clearly fasting leads to zero carbs, zero proteins and as such rapidly lowers both glucose and insulin. Dr Jason Fung is your man to understand this process. In practice fasting or any kind becomes much easier once one has become fat adapted through not eating carbs, because of the absence of hunger. Clearly long term fasting is not sustainable , instead if is an intervention that can be applied as part of a longer terms on/ off strategy and there are lots of reports that doing this helps return ones insulin and glucose levels back to normal after each eating bout. There are tons of studies on Fung's website showing this process and how much it helps. His start point is don't put any sugar in if you want to get rid of your glucose and insulin and he recommends combining IF with Low carb. and specifically NOT VLC in the interim periods

Fasting
Generally speaking those who fast successfully over the long term tend to be people who become comfortable with ketosis, because trying to fast whilst still dependent upon carbohydrates is enormously difficult as the hunger pangs make it a superhuman effort.

For that reason practically all those who advocated fasting ; Mosley or Fung, tend to already come at it from an initially low carbing perspective - i.e. cutting out carbs, and sugars is standard after which leaving longer gaps between meals becomes a possibility.

Virta Health - I think the stuff they are doing will prove to be the best result of them all - this is a classic low carb ketogenic . way of eating and coupled with intensive guidance and advice to those trying to lose weight. I think that this will prove to be the most effective answer because even if people cannot regulate their over eating the chances are that what they overeat will no longer cause metabolic damage and as such the penalties for " failure" to lose weight will be lower than any regime that makes low calories its focus,
.

Mediterranean Diet

https://www.perfectketo.com/comparing-the-keto-diet-vs-the-mediterranean-diet/

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113605

This study is particularly interesting - in effect it tracks the changes in " bad" saturated fats in the blood stream and correlates them with carbohydrate intake not saturated fat intake.

For years we have been sold the story " you are what you eat" - whereas I think we should have been told " you are what your body makes of what you eat " and actually it is carbohyrdates that create fatty deposits in the blood stream not fat intake. This actually makes perfect sense- if you eat excess fat then your body really doesn't need to do much work to convert it into fat. any excess carbs you eat must be converted into fat to be stored in the body - so the more carbs you eat the more fats you end up with in the blood stream etc etc.
I think this has been the fundamental misunderstanding underpinning the entire debate about cholesterol, LDL,and saturated fat consumption.

The emphasis on the Mediterranean diet continues to confuse me. It seems to me that the reason" Mediterranean diet" still holds so much sway is because there is a concept that somehow this diet will also reduce saturated fat consumption which must be good because saturated fat is the work of the devil. This is still inextricably linked with the whole " cholesterol should be low" debate - which frankly doesn't seem to hold much water in terms of all cause mortality and which in any event is underpinned by carb. consumption not fat consumption as the study above shows.

In truth I actually live in the Mediterranean ( Malta) and I can say with some certainty that Mediterrnean's eat rather a lot of red meat, not a diet wholly full of sardines , salmon and tuna. They also do not generally eat either carbs or pasta to quite the extent that an American would perceive both to be classic Mediterranean fodder. Visiting a traditional restaurant in Malta is likely to result in a meal very high in fats and meats and very low in carbs. I do buy that olive oil is a great fuel , and that food cooked using tomatoes, onions and garlic - generally tastes great whatever the protein chosen. I do not however see that as being much different from the classic low carb diet and any person in the Mediterranan expecting to lose weight would also cut down on the pasta and bread just like the rest of us.
In all the studies I have seen the Mediterranean diet performs well, but not as well as LCHF, primarily because there are more carbs in it overall. i.e. the Mediterranean diet is lovely healthy way of eating, but if your goal is diabetes reversal then low carb is better.

I have then seen much debate about it mattering which method you use to lose weight as to how sensitive you will be to carbs later on. There is not much doubt in my mind that eating a low carb. diet does lead to a great sensitivity to carbs during the diet- i.e. when you do fall off the wagon, there is likely to be a bigger spike than there would be if you were dieting using a higher carb content. Having said that its also likely that the higher carb content VLC diet will be showing average glucose levels higher than the low carb one anyway, so overall its likely that on average Hba1C will still be lower with LCHF and the odd lapse compared to VLC and the odd lapse.

Once the diet is " completed" - i.e. sufficient fat has been drained from your visceral fat to enable your internal organs to function again, I would be hugely surprised if your body cared much which method you used to get to that position. In this forum we have examples of people having greater ability to consume carbs without adverse effects after achieving success from each of VLC. IF and low carb/ keto. That seems to me to be entirely logical - i.e. your organs have recovered or not. It then seems entirely logical that no matter how " recovered you are " under whichever regime, if you then start loading up on the stuff that caused the problem in the first place, then you will be going right back down the same path again.

Ivor Cummings is a great overview of diet and health and a shining example of what someone with no medical knowledge but a lot of intelligence and application can make of the current confused cacophony coming from traditional research.

( sorry about the length of this post !) Hope it helps !

 

[CherryAA]

ps my comment about " reversal" coming from any of the three - was a direct recent quote from Dr Roy Taylor the Newcastle Diet Protocol chappie

 

[AdamJames]

ps my comment about " reversal" coming from any of the three - was a direct recent quote from Dr Roy Taylor the Newcastle Diet Protocol chappie

Thanks for all that! I've read it all, now I've just got to check the links. That should keep me busy

I was particularly interested in what you say about LCHF being better at getting rid of visceral fat. Recently I read an article by Jason Fung, in which he referred to a study which seemed to show that combining LCHF with fasting was particularly good at targeting visceral fat - better than calorie restriction alone. But he didn't link to the study and I couldn't find it. I don't suppose you are aware of such a study?

 

[CherryAA]

Thanks for all that! I've read it all, now I've just got to check the links. That should keep me busy

I was particularly interested in what you say about LCHF being better at getting rid of visceral fat. Recently I read an article by Jason Fung, in which he referred to a study which seemed to show that combining LCHF with fasting was particularly good at targeting visceral fat - better than calorie restriction alone. But he didn't link to the study and I couldn't find it. I don't suppose you are aware of such a study?

serendipitously my twitter feed gave me this link shortly after posting !

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

study 16 is the closest to your question,but overall overwhelming evidence that LCHF is a netter route than calorie restriction.
When data is this consistent I think the debate is over, when my own figures also confirm it, then anything else I read that goes against it - goes pretty much into my " bleh" vested interests bucket.
happy analysis !

 

[CherryAA]

https://idmprogram.com/power-comparison-fasting-vs-low-carb-fasting-26/

this is the study that Dr Fung was referring to.
Of course it comes with his own bias being the fasting guy - not seen anyone else do the research yet.Intuitively though I would agree that if diabetes is a disease of carb intolerance it follows that the lower carb the better, with zero carb winning - this has also led to "carnivore " only applications - something I'm interested in looking at - though I think I like cooking too much to be any good as a 100% carnivore - again some on here have been very successful with this as a zero carb approach too
follow sbakermd on twitter to get the low down on that- some v interesting comments.

 

[kokhongw]

Recently I read an article by Jason Fung, in which he referred to a study which seemed to show that combining LCHF with fasting was particularly good at targeting visceral fat - better than calorie restriction alone. But he didn't link to the study and I couldn't find it. I don't suppose you are aware of such a study?

Fasting is likely to be considered inhuman and outright dangerous in an era where 5 meals a day and lots of exercise has been considered the God given truth. I would be surprise if it had not been enshrined in some UN human rights and WHO constitution...Don't think you will find many recent studies.

However Dr Satchin Panda from the Salk institute and Dr Valter Longo did some amazing studies by creatively calling it time restricted feeding and fasting mimicking diet. You are still fasting but still eating.. Look them up. They may just lead you to the post truth era.

I took the red pill.

 

[CherryAA]

're the subject of exercise as a weight loss tool ...
Wot this guy says

https://www.docmuscles.com/the-truth-is-caloric-restricted-exercise-wont-work/

 

[AdamJames]

https://idmprogram.com/power-comparison-fasting-vs-low-carb-fasting-26/

this is the study that Dr Fung was referring to.

That's an interesting article but I don't think the study mentioned there refers to visceral fat. Also Dr Fung doesn't mention anything about visceral fat in his writing there.

I've found the article by Fung that I was referring to:

https://idmprogram.com/difference-calorie-restriction-fasting-fasting-27/

And I was wrong, he does actually link to the study.

However I must say (and I'm nowhere near finished going through all the links you've provided, I'm a very slow reader!) that almost every time I see a study, I wish they'd done something differently! For example, in the study I just mentioned, the comparison groups involve one on zero-calorie fasting, and the other on a mere 400 cal less than requirements per day.

Also a lot of the other studies that compare "low fat" to "lchf", seem to define "low fat" as 30% fat, which for a lot of people not consciously dieting, will be roughly what they are having anyway! By comparison, I've just started an "ND" and that's closer to 10% calories from fat. I'd be interested in seeing what interesting things start to happen when you go that low, and combine it with quite severe calorie restriction, and compare *that* to lchf, over the short term (because severe calorie restriction of ~800 cals is only really suitable short term).

Anyway there's a lot more reading to do...

Re exercise as a weight loss tool, well personally I'd agree that it's not the thing to focus on for weight loss. Just purely from a logical point of view, you can't always exercise, whereas you can always choose not to eat (fast) and if you're lucky, choose *what* you eat! I do however find that for getting fasting blood glucose readings back on track, there's nothing quicker than exercise.

And my feeling on weight loss strategies is that they need to be squarely placed into two categories: short term and long term. Short term, calorie restriction is doing wonders for me. Long term, I need to find a diet that I can stick to and that doesn't involve calorie restriction, and ideally will enable me to stay off medication for blood sugar reasons. That's why I pay a lot of attention here to recommendations about LCHF and fasting.

 

[bulkbiker]

And my feeling on weight loss strategies is that they need to be squarely placed into two categories: short term and long term. Short term, calorie restriction is doing wonders for me. Long term, I need to find a diet that I can stick to and that doesn't involve calorie restriction, and ideally will enable me to stay off medication for blood sugar reasons. That's why I pay a lot of attention here to recommendations about LCHF and fasting.

This is what I can't quite understand with your approach. if you are intending to use LCHF/fasting to maintain your weight loss then why not use it for the weight loss itself? It works, it's fairly easy to stick to and you don't feel deprived. From my position it is most illogical to put yourself through the ND to then end up eating LCHF anyway. But you must decide on your own method of course, just seems weird...

 

[AdamJames]

This is what I can't quite understand with your approach. if you are intending to use LCHF/fasting to maintain your weight loss then why not use it for the weight loss itself? It works, it's fairly easy to stick to and you don't feel deprived. From my position it is most illogical to put yourself through the ND to then end up eating LCHF anyway. But you must decide on your own method of course, just seems weird...

Well first off, I am weird, so that's probably the main explanation right there!

It's actually hard for me to explain myself why I've chosen any particular course of action. I'm certainly very indecisive. These are some of the things that have gone through my mind which has led me to trying the ND:

* Superstition. There could be something not yet fully understood about the idea of 800 calories a day of largely liquid food with a modest carb content for a number of weeks. The first time it was studied the changes to the pancreas and glucose tolerance were shown very clearly so it's hard to ignore a pattern that has been so closely studied, with the effect so clearly shown. If LCHF and fasting had been used on that diet, that's probably exactly what I'd be doing right now.

* The ND approach can be as little as 70g of carbs a day, depending on the vegetables I use. Some people call that Low Carb, and since my body will be getting the rest of its fuel from body fat, it is essentially a LCHF diet.

* Lack of discipline. I've essentially been LCHF for while, except again most of the time the HF bit will have been coming from my body. What I've found is that, even with a house full of LC (and sometimes HF) food, it's there, so I eat it. With the shakes-and-veg, it's all tolerable, but not so nice that I eat it when I shouldn't. I've cleared the house out of everything but the shakes and veg. It's helping!

* Time. I don't actually know how long I've had type 2, and there does seem to be a cut-off point whereby the idea of fat loss becomes much harder or less likely to succeed. I figure why not do it now and do it quickly.

* Experimental method. One thing I like about the ND is that your body is getting the same input of nutrients at the same time each day. So if, say, I want to check for the blood sugar spike caused by a 25g carb 'shake' reducing over the weeks, I don't need to worry about last meal effect etc. It should be fairly repeatable, with one result being a meaningful comparison to the last.

* Personal experience: When calorie restricting, my fasting levels always get low and my spikes are lower. Also, having lost 3.5 stone in 4 months, I think, there may be better methods, but this one is okay for now.

* I did try LC and really high fat for a week, and I didn't like the way I felt and I was getting chest pains. I haven't written off the idea by any means, as I was maintaining weight at the time so that was a hell of a lot of fat to be eating! It's still very much on my horizon, but there are things I take to better for now.

But as I say I'm indecisive. And I like experimenting. I'm already thinking that, at 4 weeks into the ND, I might change from 800 cal shakes into either 800 cal from solid LCHF food, or possibly even doubling it to 1,600 cal of LCHF food, or something else, just for comparison.

 

[Kentoldlady1]

This is what I can't quite understand with your approach. if you are intending to use LCHF/fasting to maintain your weight loss then why not use it for the weight loss itself? It works, it's fairly easy to stick to and you don't feel deprived. From my position it is most illogical to put yourself through the ND to then end up eating LCHF anyway. But you must decide on your own method of course, just seems weird...

I did a sort of nd, but with lchf food. About 800 cals a day, ate omad, no snacks. Did it for about 12 weeks and then upped cals. Lost nearly 6 st in 6 months. Didn't feel hungry at all, presumably because I am now keto adapted and it just seems natural to me now.

I was terrified when first dx about all the complications, and so it was easy to get started. Then found this site and all the wonderful people who share knowledge and have not looked back. But I do think that cal restrictions really helped at the beginning. It really shifted weight.

I am.not so bothered about amounts of food now and will eat until I am full up and then stop. This took quite a while to get my head around. Having a cal restriction at the beginning taught me that this portion size was sufficient. Now it doesn't seem an issue, but I think I had just lost the ability to recognize hunger and needed some help to find that again. Calorie restriction definitely helped with that.

I think that calorie restriction has benefits other than just the physical. But as we all know, we are all different.

I am now "healthy weight" and bmi of 23 (yes, I know!!) . Have lost my tummy and presumably a lot of visceral fat but am still very much t2d. This has been brought home very forcefully this month when I had a small operation and several colds and a very poorly grandson. My fbg yesterday was 8.4, and my diet has not changed.

I suppose my answer to the original question of the op would be I would know I was cured if I could be ill, miss sleep, have a lot of stress but my fbg would be in the 4's. Its not, so I'm not.

 

[AdamJames]

Now it doesn't seem an issue, but I think I had just lost the ability to recognize hunger and needed some help to find that again. Calorie restriction definitely helped with that.

I think that calorie restriction has benefits other than just the physical. But as we all know, we are all different.

I think that very much applies to me, too. When I think back to 6 months ago, my idea of food input that I expected my body to cope with was pretty ridiculous.

A lot of it is psychological. The best approach is the one that works for you mentally as well as physically. I've got a much more realistic idea about acceptable food input these days, but yet again I went off the rails recently. I think if I can get through even just a month of the ND then I'll have an even more sensible idea about how little the body really needs, and I'll start to place much higher value on eating real food and seeing it as a privilege rather than a toy.

 

[Brunneria]

I suppose my answer to the original question of the op would be I would know I was cured if I could be ill, miss sleep, have a lot of stress but my fbg would be in the 4's. Its not, so I'm not.

Absolutely.