Will YOU ask your Dr for the 600 cal diet

[Patch]

What did I miss? :lol:

 

[Ka-Mon]

Did anyone actually read every post in the thread, especially the very long ones? I tried but gave up very quickly, too long, too scientific and most of all TOO BORING.

For the time it takes to read all the (very long) posts that (more than likely) do not lead to any concrete proof/conclusion I think I'm better off reading short replies that actually help.

Sitting in front of the computer = High BG + boredom.

One hammer + one handsaw + some dead wood = exercise = low BG + less rubbish - boredom = priceless. :lol:

 

[NewdestinyX]

Did anyone actually read every post in the thread, especially the very long ones? I tried but gave up very quickly, too long, too scientific and most of all TOO BORING.

For the time it takes to read all the (very long) posts that (more than likely) do not lead to any concrete proof/conclusion I think I'm better off reading short replies that actually help.

Sitting in front of the computer = High BG + boredom.

One hammer + one handsaw + some dead wood = exercise = low BG + less rubbish - boredom = priceless. :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: EXCELLENT, KaMon!! Well said!

Though I will say - for some this issue really DOES matter. And there was only 'conversation' and 'discussion'. Discussion is not 'one upmanship'. Clarifying one's position to another that hasn't understood what you've said yet isn't one-upman-ship either. Let's just relax. Those of you who are uninterested or 'bored'.. just don't comment and ignore the thread. Seems simple - right?

For the record, when it comes to our disease - from my perspective there's no such thing as 'too scientific' - but I knew what you meant..

 

[Ka-Mon]

Did anyone actually read every post in the thread, especially the very long ones? I tried but gave up very quickly, too long, too scientific and most of all TOO BORING.

For the time it takes to read all the (very long) posts that (more than likely) do not lead to any concrete proof/conclusion I think I'm better off reading short replies that actually help.

Sitting in front of the computer = High BG + boredom.

One hammer + one handsaw + some dead wood = exercise = low BG + less rubbish - boredom = priceless. :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: EXCELLENT, KaMon!! Well said!

Though I will say - for some this issue really DOES matter. And there was only 'conversation' and 'discussion'. Discussion is not 'one upmanship'. Clarifying one's position to another that hasn't understood what you've said yet isn't one-upman-ship either. Let's just relax. Those of you who are uninterested or 'bored'.. just don't comment and ignore the thread. Seems simple - right?

Simple to ignore? Is it? In a poll that asks a simple question? Maybe it's simpler to just keep the replies and "conversations" short thus giving everyone a chance to reply to the poll question asked. Aside from that, there are other threads, more than one, where the "discussion" could have been carried on instead of filling pages and pages of it in this thread as well.

For the record, when it comes to our disease - from my perspective there's no such thing as 'too scientific' - but I knew what you meant..

Maybe the best thing for those who are interested in a deeper scientific look at diabetics is to start a new thread where conversations are held at will and only those who are interested will join. Drowning a Poll thread is not really a good idea in my view. Of course, others might think different but my view is that a poll thread is not the right place for a deep scientific conversation that does nothing but lose the intention of the poll.

Having said that, I am now also completely off topic and will no longer take part in anymore conversation and help drown the poll further.

The rubbish awaits, see you all later.

 

[NewdestinyX]

You make a good point about this being a Poll thread and getting too convoluted. Good point, KaMon.

But I'll tell you this. Threads about our disease, progression, etc, thread after thread of 'opinion', uninforned by science all too often - are not threads I will pay too much attention to. After two years in the diabetes blogosphere I couldn't be more tired of the 'folklore' that gets passed off as 'truth', or worse, as "good advice". In the same breath I can also say people can misunderstand and misapply scientific data without common sense. So I see both sides of the 'science' factor in health forums.

But, agreed, this was a 'poll thread'.

 

[RussG]

Hi all,

As I think a number of you have recognised, this thread went slightly off direction through some of the exchanges. Can we all try to keep to the general tack of the thread and consider whether some things may be better said on PM please?

Thanks,

 

[markd]

I find it disappointing that people with no medical background dismiss the findings out of hand.

Yup, me too.

I also wonder if, for instance, you had 1000 cals/day and an extra 400 cal/day of exercise, you would get the same effect.

And would it be more achievable?

Mark.

 

[Patch]

I don't think so. From what I've read (and I'm certainly NOT medically trained!), the 600cal thing works because it sends your body into a kind of shock, where it immediately draws upon the fat reserves immediately surrounding the pancreas and liver. Once these fat reserves have been depleted, those organs return to normal, resulting in much better glucose control.

Almost like a service on a car???

 

[dorcas61]

My GP, who claims that if I lose weight I will cure my Diabetes, asked me to consider a Very Low Calorie diet just before this story broke - I refused simply because I know my will power isn't strong enough!
However, I have started the Slimfast routine, replacing breakfast and dinner with a drink and a piece of fruit and so far so good, the weight is coming off and I'm feeling more supple and cheerful than I have for a long time
Has anyone else tried this diet?

 

[Toms Grandma]

Slimfast like Literlife are low calorie diets and they work by making your body use its own fat to survive. It takes about three days of eating 600 calories a day to get into 'fat burning'. It means the fat around the liver, pancreas etc is being used and when thats gone it uses the rest of the fat in your body for energy. Once in 'fat burning' one often gets a feeling of well being. Rarely, but it does happen, some people feel tired to begin with until the body 'switches gear'. Whilst on this type of diet, you need to drink 2 litres of water a day, this is to help push the ketones out of the body that you make by being on this diet. If the diet is adhered to, you can lose about 10lb in the first two weeks and then 3lb a week on average thereafter. I have known people lose 10 stone over 10 months. I myself lost 4 1/2 stone in 4 months. It works, but you have to be incredibly dedicated and stick to it.

 

[dorcas61]

Slimfast like Literlife are low calorie diets and they work by making your body use its own fat to survive. ...It works, but you have to be incredibly dedicated and stick to it.

The "saving grace" of Slimfast is that I only have to replace two meals, not three as with Lighterlife... this means I can still enjoy food at lunchtime - eg yesterday strawberries and cream and in theory no food is banned (cept of course the high-sugar/high carb stuff that makes my blood sugar levels go skyhigh!) - dedication and willpower still needed, but I can relax a little.

 

[NewdestinyX]

Slimfast like Literlife are low calorie diets and they work by making your body use its own fat to survive. It takes about three days of eating 600 calories a day to get into 'fat burning'. It means the fat around the liver, pancreas etc is being used and when thats gone it uses the rest of the fat in your body for energy. Once in 'fat burning' one often gets a feeling of well being. Rarely, but it does happen, some people feel tired to begin with until the body 'switches gear'. Whilst on this type of diet, you need to drink 2 litres of water a day, this is to help push the ketones out of the body that you make by being on this diet. If the diet is adhered to, you can lose about 10lb in the first two weeks and then 3lb a week on average thereafter. I have known people lose 10 stone over 10 months. I myself lost 4 1/2 stone in 4 months. It works, but you have to be incredibly dedicated and stick to it.

Well I started to respond a bit to this here. But the mods have asked us to keep this thread a little cleaner with ideas that could go off topic. I'm not sure I agree with several comments above. But I've posted my response in the other 600 calorie diet thread here:
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=22085&start=60

 

[ernie100]

Hi
I am new to this forum, so please be a little patient if I recycle old arguments/ discussions etc. I was diagnosed with Type 2 a year ago since when my medication (Metformin 500mg) doseage has gone from 1 per day to 3 (last test showed 7.5 glucose fasting measure).
Over the last I have paid attention to what i eat and have a regular exercise programme. I have lost about 10 lbs and I do need to step up the weight loss (not wildly overweight but reckon could do with losing about another 30lbs.
Anyhow I found about the programme that Newcastle Uni have run (with Diabetes UK) and spoke to the relevant department. I have read the published document and talked to various medical people including my GP.
I have decided to try this diet, albeit slightly modified to provide 300 more calories on the days that I work out in the gym (in excess of 1 hour with a personal trainer 2 or 3 times a week) which will comprise of non starchy veg rather than an increase in Optifast,,,on the other days I will keep up general exercise eg cycling etc. I am not a medical person but understand how the body works and have listened to people who know a hell of a lot about this subject...and whose judgement I trust.
So when I get delivery of Optifast etc next week I will start...I am not advocating anyone else to try it, but I want to see what it will do for me...in a controlled way with exercise and with the appropriate medical monitoring...my GP and Diabetes clinic have agreed to give whatever support is necessary........why am I telling you this????
1. Because i am going to make a diary online of each day of what I do, how I feel and regularly update my results....
2. I am doing it because at this stage ~I have a choice...and it is worth taking the chance...with the appropriate safety nets
3. I hope that some of you will find my experience useful and interesting
In return if you have any suggestions then feel free to join in...note i would not appreciate any debate as to if I should do this it and should this work or brickbats being thrown at me...its my choice and I want to share the results and experiences .....hope that does not sound preachy...but i have seen some of dialogue on this forum

So if that ok with the administrators I will kick off next week ...and will provide regular updates...if thats appropriate on this forum...I will let you know when I obtain the regular powders etc :lol:

 

[borofergie]

I have decided to try this diet, albeit slightly modified to provide 300 more calories on the days that I work out in the gym (in excess of 1 hour with a personal trainer 2 or 3 times a week) which will comprise of non starchy veg rather than an increase in Optifast,,,on the other days I will keep up general exercise eg cycling etc. I am not a medical person but understand how the body works and have listened to people who know a hell of a lot about this subject...and whose judgement I trust.

Hiya ernie100!

I like your thinking.

I would love to try the diet too but, like you, exercise is thing that is making me think twice about it: I've been running since I was diagnosed four months ago, and have built up to 10miles a week (2miles x 4days a week).

I was thinking about modifying the calories to take account of exercise too, but it's difficult to do work out exactly how many calories to add. My heart rate monitor records a 2 mile run at about 400 calories, which is probably excessive, but this is only for the time that I'm actually running, and doesn't account for the increased metabolic rate in the following hours...

I would have thought that 300 calories is undercooking it (but then you might be a lot fitter than me, or have a better estimate). I also think that you should be able to metabolise fat to get the extra energy - lots of people told me that I couldn't run on low carbs, and that turned out to be rubbish.

I'd also worry about blood spikes on 20g of carbs per shake, but again, that might be worth it for the long term gain.

This also made me think twice:
http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/2011 ... erses.html

Good luck, and let us know how you get on.

 

[borofergie]

Patch and Kenny are doing the same thing:

viewtopic.php?f=1&p=207493#p207493
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22130&p=207192#p207192

As far as I'm concerned all three of you are heroes for the causes for submitting yourselves as human guinea pigs.... (...even though Patch and Kenny cynically stole my idea for South Park based avatars :mrgreen: ).

 

[Kenny]

This also made me think twice:
http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/2011 ... erses.html

Take heart. I followed this link and read the rant. She seems to have omitted to actually read the research paper properly. The researchers were not testing a diet. They were measuring fat content of the liver and pancreas. After 12 weeks of resumption of a normal diet, excess fat had NOT returned to the liver and pancreas, and BS readings were non-diabetic for 7 out of the 11 subjects.

It's not a dangerous diet, because it's a short-term diet (only 8 weeks).

Edited to remove personal comment.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

This also made me think twice:
http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/2011 ... erses.html

Take heart. I followed this link and read the rant. She seems to have omitted to actually read the research paper properly. The researchers were not testing a diet. They were measuring fat content of the liver and pancreas. After 12 weeks of resumption of a normal diet, excess fat had NOT returned to the liver and pancreas, and BS readings were non-diabetic for 7 out of the 11 subjects.

It's not a dangerous diet, because it's a short-term diet (only 8 weeks).

Edited to remove personal comment.

Strange how different people perceive things isnt it, I have always thought that Jenny Ruhl talked a lot of sense and she certainly helped me on the road to diabetic control, along with this forum of course. I just read the blog and I didnt see a rant at all just a thought provoking piece of writing and she does mention the fat surrounding the liver and pancreas within the first paragraph or so.

 

[NewdestinyX]

Strange how different people perceive things isnt it, I have always thought that Jenny Ruhl talked a lot of sense

..which is 'itself' a 'perception'. And of course it would make 'sense' if you desire to do things her way.. :wink:

and she certainly helped me on the road to diabetic control,

You're not alone here. Many ultra low carbers have found her blog to be a sort of 'bible' of the 'purer way'.

I just read the blog and I didnt see a rant at all just a thought provoking piece of writing and she does mention the fat surrounding the liver and pancreas within the first paragraph or so.

You do not pick up from her writing about it that she's a fan of it though. But rant? Well - perceptions are what they are.. agreed.

Read the paper again... that was 12 weeks after the start of the 600 calorie diet. This study only ran for 12 weeks total... so this improvement (to Pre-Diabetes levels -- not normal levels -- for 7 out of 11 test subjects) was only tested out to 4 weeks after the diet ended.

Maybe they maintained this improvement at 12 weeks after the study ended, or maybe they didn't... that has not been documented.

Though I'm hopeful (I'm more 'glass half full' on the outcome potential than you are are, Pianoman, about this diet) I do think asking hard questions of the study is completely appropriate in addition to pointing out what it can conclude and what it can't claim as a result. And I really wish we could email or visit a blog or YOuTube series of several of the test participants (the 'testees', if you will :shock: ) to see how they're doing now.

 

[pianoman]

I took my own advice and re-read the Full Study... Kenny was right, they did re-test at 12week AFTER ending the 600 cal diet which pushes these results out a little further...

The striking results seen at 8 weeks demanded experimental follow-up, and additional ethics permission was obtained to repeat the MRI studies and carry out OGTTs 12 weeks after completing the dietary intervention.

and

Post-intervention observation At follow-up 12 weeks after completion of the dietary intervention, mean weight gain was 3.1±1.0 kg. Hepatic triacylglycerol remained low and unchanged (2.9±0.2 vs 3.0±0.3%; p=0.80), and pancreatic triacylglycerol decreased further to a small extent (6.2±1.1 vs 5.7±1.1%; p=0.005). HbA1c was unchanged (6.0±0.2 vs 6.2±0.1% [42±2 vs 44±1 mmol/mol]; p=0.10) and fasting plasma glucose increased modestly (5.7±0.5 vs 6.1± 0.2 mmol/l; p<0.01), with a 2 h OGTT plasma glucose of 10.3±1.0 mmol/l. Three participants had recurrence of diabetes as judged by a 2 h post-load plasma glucose >11.1 mmol/l. Fasting plasma insulin concentrations were unchanged (57±11 vs 65±15 pmol/l) and fasting plasma NEFA decreased further (0.72±0.06 vs 0.54±0.05 mmol/l; p<0.02). One individual was unavailable for retesting, having had surgery for an ovarian cyst (non-malignant).

http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/Lim.pdf

 

[Sid Bonkers]

and she certainly helped me on the road to diabetic control,

You're not alone here. Many ultra low carbers have found her blog to be a sort of 'bible' of the 'purer way'.

On her web site (see about the author) Jenny says she rarely eats over 100 grams of carbohydrate a day, hardly an ultra low carber Grant and neither am I, I may reduce my carb intake to the amount I can tolerate but that amount is a long way from being ultra low carb, at least by most peoples standards, perhaps you should read some posts instead of just writing them :wink: