• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

The one show discussion

AdamJames said:
@Tannith,

I just realised when I wrote that the red line in the graph belongs to someone who is deemed in remission ... in fact, according to the DiRECT study, BOTH lines belong to someone who is deemed to be in remission. This shows just how unhelpful sweeping statements like 'diabetes gone' are. It also shows how overlooking detail and nuances can cause bad feeling.

This documentary will promote your stated view, that all anyone has to do is a simple process for 8 weeks and they are cured. But then there's reality.
Click to expand...
If you replay the tape you will see that the priest was told when he came out of the second "after" pancreatic scan that his diabetes was not quite yet gone and that he had in fact another one percent of fat to lose off his pancreas before his diabetes would be gone. Prof Taylor himself said this, and also that he would need to continue the diet for "about another week"
 
This is what, to the uninitiated, the programme makers are saying:

1. Lose weight and conquer Diabetes. Your Diabetes will 'be gone'.

This reinforces the misconception that weight gain causes Type 2 Diabetes. It also reinforces the myth that overeating causes weight gain.

2. Calories matter, calories are king.

3. Regaining weight lost will spell failure, it is all about weight and weight alone. If you fail it will be your own silly fault for making the wrong choices, it will not have anything to do with the diet itself.


To say that weight loss is a choice or a decision that some people fail to make is a slur on all those people who have struggled, sometimes for decades, to improve their health and to fit in to societal expectations.
 
Blimey
Tannith said:
his diabetes was not quite yet gone and that he had in fact another one percent of fat to lose off his pancreas before his diabetes would be gone.
Click to expand...
1% - its that critical a line between success and failure? well, i somehow doubt that the priest has said goodbye to his critical mass of pancreatic fat forever, so that very quote shows that its a snapshot success at best, not a cure at all.
 
"unhelpful sweeping statements like 'diabetes gone"
Here is the longer version to which I provided a link to save space. Its a pity no one bothered to read it. "Over 8 weeks, the raised pancreas fat content fell and normal first phase insulin secretion became re-established, with normal plasma glucose control." -"they have reversed their type 2 diabetes and continued to have normal glucose levels (normoglycaemic) over years. - "Type 2 diabetes remains reversible for up to 10 years in most people, and also that the normal metabolism persists long term, as long as the person doesn’t regain the weight. I think " diabetes gone" is a reasonable abbreviation for the quotation "normoglycaemic over years" Perhaps people are picking on the semantics because they don't like the idea of a simple diet getting rid of diabetes. And not e I said "simple, not of course "easy"
 
Tannith said:
"unhelpful sweeping statements like 'diabetes gone"
Here is the longer version to which I provide a link to save space. It id pity no one bothered to read it. "Over 8 weeks, the raised pancreas fat content fell and normal first phase insulin secretion became re-established, with normal plasma glucose control." -"they have reversed their type 2 diabetes and continued to have normal glucose levels (normoglycaemic) over years. - "Type 2 diabetes remains reversible for up to 10 years in most people, and also that the normal metabolism persists long term, as long as the person doesn’t regain the weight. I think " diabetes gone" is a reasonable abbreviation for the quotation "normoglycaemic over years" Perhaps people are picking on the semantics because they don't like the idea of a simple diet getting rid of diabetes. And not e I said "simple, not of course "easy"
Click to expand...

Forgive me, how can they predict normoglycaemia for ten years when the trials have been going for only four or five years?
 
Guzzler said:
Forgive me, how can they predict normoglycaemia for ten years when the trials have been going for only four or five years?
Click to expand...
'the diabetes remains reversible for up to 10years'

do they mean that up to 10 years after diagnosis it can be reversed by this method perhaps? But, like you, I do wonder how they know the long term benefit of this.

I am pretty confident that if i maintained by weight by eating only 4 x 100g of milk chocolate a day and drinking only water, my diabetes will return even if my weight doesnt.
 
Tannith said:
If you replay the tape you will see that the priest was told when he came out of the second "after" pancreatic scan that his diabetes was not quite yet gone and that he had in fact another one percent of fat to lose off his pancreas before his diabetes would be gone. Prof Taylor himself said this, and also that he would need to continue the diet for "about another week"
Click to expand...

If you replay the tape I think you will find that at the end of the 9 weeks, well after he met Roy Taylor, he took an oral glucose tolerance test which revealed he had impaired glucose tolerance.

Anyway, all this is distracting from an interesting real-world scenario.

You've made many posts advocating the ND, and you are talking to someone who is interested in it. I've laid down a challenge which will persuade me to try it. It could go very well. You could discover that you have great glucose tolerance, and that will persuade me to give it a try, and if the same effect occurs for me then that could persuade others to try.

I don't understand why you haven't responded to my challenge. It was a serious one. I'll send you the Rapilose if it would help persuade you to rise to the challenge.
 
lucylocket61 said:
'the diabetes remains reversible for up to 10years'

do they mean that up to 10 years after diagnosis it can be reversed by this method perhaps? But, like you, I do wonder how they know the long term benefit of this.

I am pretty confident that if i maintained by weight by eating only 4 x 100g of milk chocolate a day and drinking only water, my diabetes will return even if my weight doesnt.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the programme was so heavily edited that Prof. Taylor's information was cut to the point of ambiguity (esp. with regard to hyperglycaemia). Anyhoo, please tell me more about the 'Cadbury Diet'. Does it allow for the caramel or the fruit and nut versions?
 
Guzzler said:
Perhaps the programme was so heavily edited that Prof. Taylor's information was cut to the point of ambiguity (esp. with regard to hyperglycaemia). Anyhoo, please tell me more about the 'Cadbury Diet'. Does it allow for the caramel or the fruit and nut versions?
Click to expand...
providing you dont exceed your daily calorie allowance for a stable healthy weight and thus a happy pancreas, the choice is yours my friend : )))))
 
Guzzler said:
Perhaps the programme was so heavily edited that Prof. Taylor's information was cut to the point of ambiguity (esp. with regard to hyperglycaemia). Anyhoo, please tell me more about the 'Cadbury Diet'. Does it allow for the caramel or the fruit and nut versions?
Click to expand...
P S I checked again about the 10 year thing and it does mean best results if less than 10 years after diagnosis.
 
lucylocket61 said:
I am pretty confident that if i maintained by weight by eating only 4 x 100g of milk chocolate a day and drinking only water, my diabetes will return even if my weight doesnt.
Click to expand...

I've found an interesting relationship between calories, carbs and blood sugar levels that's always held true for me every time I've put it to the test:

If I'm on very low calories, I can eat lots of carbs and get low fasting blood sugars. But if I'm on high calories, enough to cause weight gain, then I get high fasting readings even if on low carbs.

So I'd bet that I could get a great HbA1c by eating a lot of carbs provided the calories were low and I'd been losing weight for three months before the HbA1c test. But I'd almost certainly be damaging myself along the way because each input of food would cause horrible big spikes, because I'm diabetic.

I also read a post somewhere, not on this forum, where someone said they'd greatly improved their average blood sugar by eating nothing but 150 grams of table sugar each day for a week or so. It sounds like a crazy thing to do, but based on my own experience I believe him.

Anyway that's just me and my observations. I don't want it to sound like I'm contradicting you because I quoted you, it was just relevant to what you'd posted. Just goes to show that we all have different metabolisms.
 
Guzzler said:
Ah, thank you.
Click to expand...
In this new study, 30 volunteers with Type 2 diabetes embarked on the same diet of 600 to 700 calories a day. Participants lost on average 14 kilograms -- just over 2 stone. Over the next 6 months they did not regain any weight.

The group included many people with longer duration diabetes, defined as more than 8 years and ranging up to 23 years.

Overall, 12 patients who had had diabetes for less than 10 years reversed their condition. 6 months later they remained diabetes free. In fact, after 6 months a thirteenth patient had reversed their diabetes.

Though the volunteers lost weight they remained overweight or obese but they had lost enough weight to remove the fat out of the pancreas and allow normal insulin production.

Professor Roy Taylor said: "What we have shown is that it is possible to reverse your diabetes, even if you have had the condition for a long time, up to around 10 years. If you have had the diagnosis for longer than that, then don't give up hope -- major improvement in blood sugar control is possible.
Click to expand...

the above is a direct quote from the link I posted, about the 2016 trial.
 
AdamJames said:
I've found an interesting relationship between calories, carbs and blood sugar levels that's always held true for me every time I've put it to the test:

If I'm on very low calories, I can eat lots of carbs and get low fasting blood sugars. But if I'm on high calories, enough to cause weight gain, then I get high fasting readings even if on low carbs.

So I'd bet that I could get a great HbA1c by eating a lot of carbs provided the calories were low and I'd been losing weight for three months before the HbA1c test. But I'd almost certainly be damaging myself along the way because each input of food would cause horrible big spikes, because I'm diabetic.

I also read a post somewhere, not on this forum, where someone said they'd greatly improved their average blood sugar by eating nothing but 150 grams of table sugar each day for a week or so. It sounds like a crazy thing to do, but based on my own experience I believe him.

Anyway that's just me and my observations. I don't want it to sound like I'm contradicting you because I quoted you, it was just relevant to what you'd posted. Just goes to show that we all have different metabolisms.
Click to expand...


interesting stuff. I just wonder, if, for example, one was to eat 800 cals a day, all of it carbs, that would be 200g a day? so far less than many people eat, and around the amount given in the eatwell plate recommendations.

And assuming that you would only eat about half those calories as carbs, then you are on low carbing territory (under 120g of carbs a day) by default.
 
lucylocket61 said:
the above is a direct quote from the link I posted, about the 2016 trial.
Click to expand...

Again, it seems like a 50-50 rate of good outcomes. That is better than sticking to a western diet and doing nothing. I must stress that I do not have a problem with ND per se. It is the refeeding that concerns me and the fact that the media are portraying this kind of diet as ground breaking or revolutionary and that it 'cures' Type 2 Diabetes.
 
lucylocket61 said:
interesting stuff. I just wonder, if, for example, one was to eat 800 cals a day, all of it carbs, that would be 200g a day? so far less than many people eat, and around the amount given in the eatwell plate recommendations.

And assuming that you would only eat about half those calories as carbs, then you are on low carbing territory (under 120g of carbs a day) by default.
Click to expand...

Yes, when I did a few days of ND style eating, 3 shakes plus 2xveg soups, I estimate I was having between 90-110g carbs a day. Depending on the shakes and the veg I reckon it could even be down to 75g a day but that would be on a low-veg day. The way I see it, since the body is getting the rest of its energy from body fat, it's essentially a reduced-carb, increased-fat way of fueling the body. Depending on what one was eating before of course.

I think it must be quite hard to 'prove', if one is interested in proving it, whether it's the reduced carbs or the reduced calories that are most responsible for getting rid of fat from the liver and pancreas. I suspect a bit of both as the body seems to have a great way of balancing things over time, i.e. even though fat and carbs are metabolised in different ways, I think the body still tries to store things and remove things in as consistent way as possible. I think weight gain from either a ton of carbs or a ton of fat is likely to result in fat being stored in the liver, for example.
 
One of the things that bemuses me about the ND is that Prof Taylor says that to maintain the weight loss, people will have to eat a third less calories than they were eating before doing the diet and maintain that deficit for the rest of their lives. Easy to say, but pretty hard to do IRL. The main reason people put on weight after crash diets is because very few have the willpower to maintain a calorie deficit long term. It's hard to fool the body's inbuilt appestat. See the Minnesota starvation experiment - the long term result is psychological disturbances!
 
Back
Top