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

Newspaper Article What Do People Think?

That old chestnut: It's being fat that has makes you diabetic, so if you starve yourself for two to three months by reducing calories dramatically, you will become thin and not diabetic. Then, easy-peasy, you just have to keep the weight off by restricting calories. Simples.
I'd rather lose weight by reducing carbs and increasing fats and keep the weight off by continuing to do the same. Diabetes symptoms also, miraculously disappear and many complications heal or go away.

Using either method, the old argument about whether you are still diabetic still stands.
Sally
 
does Roy Taylor actually advocate low fat? I may be under a misconception here.

and:

What we now also know is that a strict low-calorie diet seems to suck fat away from the organs at quite an astonishing rate, rebooting your metabolism.
Click to expand...

I didnt think that it was possible to target where ones weight is lost.
 
Well there's not much fat in the ND so I guess Prof Taylor does advocate low fat.

I see low calorie diets as a kind of punishment for T2s because they are fat. I see low carb high fat diets as nurturing T2s by giving them the nutrition they need. I know which of the two I prefer.
 
lucylocket61 said:
this diet is being touted and syndicated all over the place. Can we discuss the pros and cons of it please?
Click to expand...

No doubt in my mind that a lot of people will be better off with lower carbs and 12 weeks at 800 cals a day will help them some to lose weight and from my personal experience will lead to much better BG control, my graphs from my Freestyle Libre are exemplary. To suggest it's a complete cure would be misleading. I've only ever increased my calorie intake from 800 to about 1200 with most of that 400 extra being protein, but in my case it's enough to start mg BG spiking a bit.

I wish that people's expectations are handled better because there could be some disappointment which could lead to this approach being ignored in the future.

Something none of this hype seems to cover is the state of the pancreas in the first place, the pancreas might produce normal amounts of insulin, as does mine (3 c-peptide tests in last 2 years), but what about the pancreatic beta cells which are responsible for producing insulin. Also, as there are tests for insulin resistance, I'd love to see before and after.
 
I see from the list of things to avoid are in the meals ie Bread and spaghetti (pasta). They say "If you avoid putting on weight and are physically active, you won’t develop the condition" Not sure if this is true as seen posts on here from people of all sizes.
LCHF every time for me. :)
 
800 kcals is a low carb diet unless you eat it in Mars bars. The point of the diet which is backed up by 2 srtudies done in the North East and Scotland across 100,000 people I believe is that losing the fat around your liver and pancreas rapidly reverses insulin resistance before you have lost all of your body fat. It works the same way as bariatric surgery. I'd agree with others here that over the long term going low carb would be more achievable and sustainable.
However whilst the public is still scared of eating fat and is confused about carbs perhaps its more effective to suggest a temporary starvation diet followed up with a gradual re education.
To illustrate this I was working at a diabetes Uk stall in Surrey this weekend after The Truth About Carbs programme had aired. A man cam e up to me stating that he was shocked to discover how much sugar broccoli had in it according to that programme. I think he was disappointed to learn that broccoli was okay because it has lots of fibre in it and refused to accept the serving suggestion of adding a little butter upon it.
So I think the Newcastle Diet will have legs because its based on Diabetes UK research but I think the nuances of low cal versus low carb will be lost which will be a shame for the long term viability of the approach.
 
Terrytiddy said:
I see from the list of things to avoid are in the meals ie Bread and spaghetti (pasta). They say "If you avoid putting on weight and are physically active, you won’t develop the condition" Not sure if this is true as seen posts on here from people of all sizes.
LCHF every time for me. :)
Click to expand...
lol I spent 35 years trying not to put on weight. :hilarious: So easy for them to say and not so easy for some of us to do. And I have lost count of the number of 800 cal diets I did along the way.
 
lucylocket61 said:
Can we discuss the pros and cons of it please?
Click to expand...
This is just an opinion but I think it's great.
It's not the way I did it and if anyone was to ask me I would tell them not to do it this way.

Why I think its great.
There have been 3 programs on the BBC recently the truth about carbs, the one show thing and Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall all Gordies are fat one. All three showed how in a very short period of time people can "reverse" a condition that was thought to be irreversible. With more and more people being diagnosed it's important for them to know its not a death sentence.

IS it 100% spot on for everyone, covering all the subtleties and nuances associated with the condition? No.
But it doesn't have to be.

Why I think it's bad.
First it's not a cure. It seems to be portrayed as a get out of Jail Free card. Just crash diet for a couple of weeks and you will be all good. IF crash diets worked for people staying thin then every one who has ever done one would still be thin.
But that's OK if you put the weight back on just go on a crash diet again and your all good.

That is dangerous thinking and sounds like an eating disorder to me.:banghead:
:bag:
 
lucylocket61 said:
I didnt think that it was possible to target where ones weight is lost.
Click to expand...

Nor me. But since doing the LCHF thing, my scales tell me I've lost a good chunk of core/visceral fat. But that's something I'm reading up on, ie how fat is deposited, white vs brown fat cells, and then how we use fat. Maybe it's as simple as fat stores get laid down close to the liver during feast times, then used up in famine. That has a certain logic, ie closest store first & may also explain some of the 'thin but T2' people who haven't had their livers examined closely. Or people like Sir Steve Redgrave. With him, I'm also wondering if essentially doing millions of crunches during his rowing career caused some physical damage to his liver/pancreas.
 
Bluetit1802 said:
Have you read how many carbs he was eating? A HUGE, HUGE amount.
Click to expand...

Yup, along with a lot of other athletes. I don't know if there have been studies into the effects and potential damage caused by high carb diets for training, or in endurance events like cyclists doing the Tour de France etc.
 
first14808 said:
Yup, along with a lot of other athletes. I don't know if there have been studies into the effects and potential damage caused by high carb diets for training, or in endurance events like cyclists doing the Tour de France etc.
Click to expand...

I saw something on TV years ago about Sir Steve when he was training for one of his Olympic races. The cameras followed him for a lot of weeks. It was way before my diagnosis so I wasn't too knowledgeable about carbs, but the amounts of food he ate were elephantine.
 
What a terribly misleading article!

The following statements are simply untrue:

How to beat diabetes in 12 weeks: Top professors share a deliciously simple diet plan to help you slim down and say goodbye to medication forever
It is claiming that we can beat T2 within 12 weeks. Only trouble is, it doesn't define what 'beat' means, does it?
In fact we know that even those who achieve 'remission' according to the lax criteria quoted by the Bloodsugar and Newcastle diets, need to eat differently and keep the weight off for life. The diets offer no guaranteed assurances. These may be possible goals for some of us. But there are NO GUARANTEES.

And the best thing about it is that almost everyone with type 2 diabetes has the power to rid themselves of their condition.
'Almost everyone'? What nonsense. The Newcastle Studies have shown that a minority of T2s can achieve reversal of their T2 for the period they have been monitored. That is NOT the same as 'almost everyone' 'ridding themselves' is it? Especially when you consider that someone might be in their 40s when they achieve this 'reversal' and will hopefully live another 50 years. Suddenly 3-5 years of study data looks less exciting, doesn't it? Who knows what those future decades will bring?

it involves taking no medication at all.
Really? Gosh. So if I took this miracle cure, I could stop the medication that I am on for medical conditions not related to T2? Wonderful news. Why don't I believe it? Maybe I am just a non-believer, a Grinch and a spoilsport?

The one question you need to ask yourself is: do you want to change your life for ever?
Hmm. Difficult question. What am I supposed to be changing? I thought we were talking about putting T2 into 'reversal', but if you want to discuss 'changing my life for ever' then perhaps you can provide me with a major lottery win? Or a body transplant? Or even an island in the caribbean? Now those could really be life changing.

The whole thing is appallingly bad journalism.
I am astonished that it hasn't been retracted for legal reasons.

I think the Newcastle/Bloodsugar 800 cal diets have a very useful place in the toolbox for T2 management. I am not mocking the diets. I am throwing my hands up in the air at the dire quality of journalism that this article demonstrates. It is misleading, factually incorrect and doing more harm than good. Maybe someone who follows this diet for the whole 12 weeks and then doesn't 'get rid' of their T2 could sue the Daily Mail. That would be interesting.
 
I know of 2 people who did the Michael Mosley diet. They both lost loads of weight and 'reversed' their diabetes and they are both now piling on weight and heading back to where they were because they are now eating bread and cakes again! I think LCHF is more sustainable, re-educates and is more of a life style than a diet.
 
Last edited:
sally and james said:
That old chestnut: It's being fat that has makes you diabetic, so if you starve yourself for two to three months by reducing calories dramatically, you will become thin and not diabetic. Then, easy-peasy, you just have to keep the weight off by restricting calories. Simples.
I'd rather lose weight by reducing carbs and increasing fats and keep the weight off by continuing to do the same. Diabetes symptoms also, miraculously disappear and many complications heal or go away.

Using either method, the old argument about whether you are still diabetic still stands.
Sally
Click to expand...
I weigh myself most days to check that the weight isn't creeping back. The last thing I want is my T2 back. I'd hate to be condemned to a lifetime of low carbing and eating high fat to make up the missing calories. I think saturated fat is particularly unsuitable for me as I believe it is bad for my cardiovascular system and would do me as much harm as the high blood sugars would have done if I had eaten carbs instead. Incidentally , far from putting on weight I have actually lost a couple of pounds more since I finished Newcastle 6 months ago.
 
Back
Top