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

good news

All about remission via exercise though in addition to upping his exercise game, he decided to drop 1000 kcals from his daily diet too following the Direct DUK research I believe.
I like the article because it mentions the fact that you don't need to be overweight and eating very badly to get type 12 nor have very obvious symptoms however as the first comment points out We don't need carbs to do low to moderate intensity exercise and as a Sports Scientist he should have updated his knowledge (there is still a debate about the benefits for short burst competitive sports).
Keto is derided as a fad diet too which isn't helpful.
 
bulkbiker said:
He's a sports scientist.. god forbid he should learn anything new that upset his income stream...
Click to expand...
C'mon BB - Tim Noakes ripped out those pages from his running bible. I suspect its the Quackers DuK people bigging up their Direct Research.
 
Can't read as it's behind a pay all! As a slim prediabetic who was running when it was first picked up I'm interested in this.
 
NicoleC1971 said:
C'mon BB - Tim Noakes ripped out those pages from his running bible. I suspect its the Quackers DuK people bigging up their Direct Research.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why Noakes stands out though..and probably why he was dragged through the courts..

But yes likely DUK protecting their investment..
 
MohamedAl said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/reversed-diabetes-six-months-exercise/
Click to expand...

well I did exercise for around 12 hours a week effective hours , and also lost 34 kg... it didn 't cure me from diabetes... so just want to state that we are all individuals here with different degrees of diabetes and that all can not be cured the same way...
the most effective is I guess extremely low carb eating style which will help most people...

I think there might also be different reasons why we become diabetic in the first place...

some have a genetic disposition I think.

there was a statistic examination of children having been in their mothers womb under the hunger in the Nederlands in the end of world war II , and compared to the children born some years later in the Nederlands it showed that people born of a starving mother are much more prone to become diabetic later in their life...

Both I and my mother as well did suffer from extreme "hyperemesis gravidarum" where we could not keep food in our stomach while being pregnant, in my case it only stopped 3 days after I had born my daughter , she lived from my body and glucose in my veins and right before I had her I weighed 10 kg less than when I became pregnant.. only because I could not keep my levothyroxine pill in my stomach I didn't lose more.. So in theory/ statistically both I and my daughter would be prone to become diabetic.. I hope the glucose in my veins will protect my daughter( it can also have contributed to me becomming diabtic in combination with all the phalats in the tubes leading the glucose into my veins). It could be interpreted so that the conditions in the womb could fixate a starving child to be ready only to live in a starving environment and not in a land of plenty...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/science/dutch-famine-genes.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/11/001120074518.htm
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.10331
 
Last edited:
bulkbiker said:
That's exactly why Noakes stands out though..and probably why he was dragged through the courts..

But yes likely DUK protecting their investment..
Click to expand...
The Telegraph article is mainly an advert for Gleeson's book, and contains some dodgy info - eg "your body naturally needs carbohydrates". Naturally he wants to promote exercise, which is what he's selling, and wants to minimise keto or calorie restriction.

The article links to a January 2021 interview with Gary Taubes (who also has a new book out) and this is much more supportive of LCHF than the Gleeson article. Selection below:

Yet public health guidance typically recommends bread, pasta and potatoes. “Starchy food,” says the NHS’s Eatwell Guide, “should make up just over a third of the food we eat.” Guidance along those lines, Taubes says, “is just the wrong advice. It works for lean and healthy people, who, if they follow that advice, will probably remain lean and healthy. But for those of us who are predisposed to get fat, and we are now 50 per cent of the population, that’s the wrong advice. We do that diet and we get fatter, and/or we get hungry. So we’re either going to be fatter, and trying to restrict how much we want to eat all the time, because we’re constantly hungry, or we’re going to eat to satiety and really have a problem with our weight and our blood sugar.”

So why would the NHS and other public health authorities promulgate such a destructive diet? Advocates of low-carb, high-fat argue that this has happened for several reasons. The main one is that people of naturally healthy weights tend to assume that whatever they eat should work for others, too. So in a society in which most people are slim and grain-based diets are cheap and practical, grain-based diets are likely to appear favourable. Based on what was, in Taubes’ view, flimsy evidence, nutritionists such as the charismatic Ancel Keys argued from the 1950s onwards that saturated fat caused heart disease. Food manufacturers used cheap, high-carb products such as corn and wheat, using them to create processed foods that were marketed as low-fat but which exacerbated obesity rather than alleviating it.
 
KennyA said:
The Telegraph article is mainly an advert for Gleeson's book, and contains some dodgy info - eg "your body naturally needs carbohydrates". Naturally he wants to promote exercise, which is what he's selling, and wants to minimise keto or calorie restriction.

The article links to a January 2021 interview with Gary Taubes (who also has a new book out) and this is much more supportive of LCHF than the Gleeson article. Selection below:

Yet public health guidance typically recommends bread, pasta and potatoes. “Starchy food,” says the NHS’s Eatwell Guide, “should make up just over a third of the food we eat.” Guidance along those lines, Taubes says, “is just the wrong advice. It works for lean and healthy people, who, if they follow that advice, will probably remain lean and healthy. But for those of us who are predisposed to get fat, and we are now 50 per cent of the population, that’s the wrong advice. We do that diet and we get fatter, and/or we get hungry. So we’re either going to be fatter, and trying to restrict how much we want to eat all the time, because we’re constantly hungry, or we’re going to eat to satiety and really have a problem with our weight and our blood sugar.”

So why would the NHS and other public health authorities promulgate such a destructive diet? Advocates of low-carb, high-fat argue that this has happened for several reasons. The main one is that people of naturally healthy weights tend to assume that whatever they eat should work for others, too. So in a society in which most people are slim and grain-based diets are cheap and practical, grain-based diets are likely to appear favourable. Based on what was, in Taubes’ view, flimsy evidence, nutritionists such as the charismatic Ancel Keys argued from the 1950s onwards that saturated fat caused heart disease. Food manufacturers used cheap, high-carb products such as corn and wheat, using them to create processed foods that were marketed as low-fat but which exacerbated obesity rather than alleviating it.
Click to expand...
I can really recommend Taubes book The Case For Keto as it gives you a useful history of this thinking as well as some practical guidance.
The point about Eatwell and all the other low fat plans being like teaching a fat or diabetic person to eat like a thin person is very well made bu clearly not mainstream.
I've also listened to a DUK summary of research into type 2 where low carb/keto research was obliquely referred too (The Virta Health studies) but somewhat dismissed.
From talking to different people it would be helpful if there was more clarity about whether its the weight loss or specifically the visceral fat loss that drives the improvement of metabolic health.
 
Back
Top