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

Trying so willfully to come off T2DM

Yes, the highly processed food is everywhere now. Really hard to avoid! Anyway, keep on beating off that T2. Whether you triumph totally or only partially refusing to be defeated by it will improve your quality of life. Have you tried lifting weights? Supposed to be very effective in T2s even tho you see some temporary rises in blood sugar as you build.
 
My favourite sport is jogging and sprinting. I usually jog for one hour a day. Thanks for your supportive warm words. I hope to be able to come back to this forum with good news. I have no doubt in my mind that this condition is reversible and wish everyone can share my experience and defeat it like I intend to do.
 
waleed said:
I am sharing my story on this platform because I need support from all of you. So please do be nosey as much as you can. First your comments about feeding the pig lack
The full details of the diet so it's difficult to derive any conclusion based on available data.
As for my diet now. I am having 3 boiled eggs for breakfast. 100 grams of meat for lunch and dinner. By meat I mean either chicken, beef, liver, or fish. In between meals I keep drinking all kind of sugar free drinks.
Click to expand...
I still think you are doing yourself considerable damage on that diet. It's a kind of low/no diet and starvation level to boot. No carbs and I don't argue with that but the occasional veg thrown in could be useful. I think you are far too low in protein. And what is absolutely lacking is fat and fat is essential.



Edited to remove offensive comment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Totto
I appreciate your concern. I am not doing anything different from the Newcastle trial, except that my diet is ketogenic. Thus allowing deeper visceral fat to be burned. I know that I can up my calorie intake to a higher level. But I am afraid that my will may waver with time. However my protein portion is adequate as I am having around 90 grams a day.
One Last Note. When going on low carbs one does not lose weight for eating less. He is eating less because he's losing weight. Remember that excess fat was stored for one reason only to be used in the future.
 
waleed said:
One Last Note. When going on low carbs one does not lose weight for eating less. He is eating less because he's losing weight. Remember that excess fat was stored for one reason only to be used in the future.
Click to expand...
The problem with that note is that it assume your body is using fat rather than protein (muscle). A carbless diet by itself sometimes isn't enough to put your body in a state of ketosis. Have you actually confirmed (with test strips) that your body is in a state of ketosis? Don't necessarily assume that all weight loss is good weight loss.

I maintain some of the same reservations Totto has. Your caloric intake sounds like it borders on a level of being considered a starvation diet. That can have significant health consequences that, in some cases, can be even more severe than your diabetes.

I'm only thinking out loud, and I'm not making accusations. I'm just a bit concerned that your approach isn't the healthiest.
 
I have no doubt that I am losing muscles together with fat. I did and frequently test positive for ketosis. The point is that I
Know this is not a game and serious stuff. I have become skin on bones and facing strong opposition from close family members. I found comfort in the fact that I finally learned how to cross the weight level of 67 kg. And now in the neighbourhood of 62 kg. I will up my fat intake if l feel l may step in dangerous territories. But I am willing to go farther than usual for one reason. The trophy at the end of the mission is very much worth the gamble.
 
While the BMI model is imperfect, it's still a useful guide for most people. What is your height? From there you can work out what the "normal" weight range is for your height.

If you are determined to be significantly below that range, then the possibility of "disordered eating" comes into play. It's good to be motivated to be healthy, but there can come a point where it becomes an obsession, which may not be healthy. We all need to eat enough macro and micronutrients (vitamins and minerals). Most weight loss diets come with the caveat "seek medical advice" for a reason.
 
I am 178 cm. The lowest weight of the healthy zone for my height is 57 kg. Even a little bit below this weight is considered underweight but not dangerously so.
 
Waleed, where do you live and who is treating you? Have you considered checking whether you really have Type 1? Not all adults have Type 2. It just might be LADA or 1.5. I ask because you have lost a lot of weight without reversing or even really improving your outcomes. Have you had a GAD test or a C-peptide test? There are people on this forum who were diagnosed with LADA, Type 1.5 or even Type 1 in their fifties.
 
CatLadyNZ said:
While the BMI model is imperfect, it's still a useful guide for most people.
Click to expand...
I think higher of the Eatwell plate than I do of the BMI index, in all honesty. It suggests that an amphetamine addict is somehow healthier than I am. That's laughable. The BMI is useless and it's nothing more than a pathway to anorexia.

Follow and track the right numbers: glucose levels, body fat %, waistline, etc.
 
waleed said:
I am driven by my faith that the pancreas can always meet the insulin requirements of the body even at partial functioning.
Click to expand...
Apologies if this has been answered already, I've been away for a week enjoying the sun in Rio de Janeiro while my wife was attending a conference. You say you have faith that your pancreas can always meet the insulin requirements of the body. Have you had a c-peptide test and if so, what were the results? If you know that it's 100% OK, then obviously insulin resistance is the problem and what causes that isn't always down to weight. Certainly the Newcastle trial showed weight loss led to lower BG levels, but there is also growing evidence to show that long term low calorie intake causes a slowing down of the metabolism. You've probably heard of what dieters call "The Plateau", partially caused by not adjusting calorie intake as weight is lost, though adjustment required is small if you go by the Harris Benedict formula.
It is only my opinion but nothing is reversed unless you can sit down and eat exactly the same as anyone else without your BG behaving differently to what is considered to be normal. For most type IIs I believe it means that we have to watch our carb intake all the time in an effort to have well controlled BG levels. It is also my opinion that Diabetes has become an epidemic, not only because of our present day diet, but also because our doctors are much better at not only looking out for it, but also getting people tested.
 
TorqPenderloin said:
I think higher of the Eatwell plate than I do of the BMI index, in all honesty. It suggests that an amphetamine addict is somehow healthier than I am. That's laughable. The BMI is useless and it's nothing more than a pathway to anorexia.

Follow and track the right numbers: glucose levels, body fat %, waistline, etc.
Click to expand...
I think saying "the BMI is useless" doesn't meet the standards of objectivity that you aspired to in your post above. Clearly the BMI model has some degree of usefulness for some people in some situations. It's a general guide, and can tell us things like - when a person has a BMI over 40, they are likely to be at risk of obesity-related health problems.

Ability to measure glucose levels and body fat % are often not as readily available as a set of scales and a measuring tape. One of the public health strategies that community services are trying to use is to get people to think about their weight to height ratio. This might be the only route in to some people's lives.

Anyway, the purpose of my raising the issue was to try and get a sense of whether the OP is significantly underweight for his height, which it appears he is not.
 
Objective criticism to the BMI index is that it suggests the presence of too much fat for people with too much muscles, and it underestimates the weight of fat for normal weight people. So for someone with high percentage of belly fat and normal weight will be misled to think that his excess bad fat is muscles.
 
waleed said:
Objective criticism to the BMI index is that it suggests the presence of too much fat for people with too much muscles, and it underestimates the weight of fat for normal weight people. So for someone with high percentage of belly fat and normal weight will be misled to think that his excess bad fat is muscles.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's fair. For someone significantly overweight, it can be a good tool for telling him or her that action is needed. I used to have a BMI of 46 and I got it down to 27, which I was pretty happy with. I would have liked to go lower and I still want to achieve this eventually. Perhaps my view of the BMI model is more positive than others because I was obese in the past. In my experience when you are overweight or obese you don't always have an honest appreciation of how big you are. Even a rudimentary tool like BMI is better than nothing, if it gets the message through.
 
I guess I am definitely type 2. Because I could eat 500 grams of simple carbs and maintain a BG reading close to 240 with metformin.
Now let's assume the worst and say I progressed to type 1.5. Won't you agree with me that if l up my fat intake and follow a maintenance ketogenic diet without a caloric deficit will give me both adequate nutrition and good BG readings. Have I not already entered a better place for my condition. Even if my pancreas doesn't become more active.
 
More evidence is surfacing that visceral fat is the root cause of diabetes, not obesity. You can be obese and healthy if you don't carry the fat in the wrong places. Equally one can be skinny and unhealthy for having too much belly fat.
As for slowing metabolism with losing weight. I guess you got it wrong. A person's basic metabolic rate decreases with losing weight because he no more needs to feed the fat cells that he shed Away. This is not the same as slowing metabolism which happens when someone adapts to starvation.
 
20151017_084735.jpg
waleed said:
More evidence is surfacing that visceral fat is the root cause of diabetes, not obesity. You can be obese and healthy if you don't carry the fat in the wrong places. Equally one can be skinny and unhealthy for having too much belly fat.
As for slowing metabolism with losing weight. I guess you got it wrong. A person's basic metabolic rate decreases with losing weight because he no more needs to feed the fat cells that he shed Away. This is not the same as slowing metabolism which happens when someone adapts to starvation.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top