Started low carb low calorie diet - blood glucose still higher than expected!

[Tannith]

Hello,

Thanks for reading!

I've been on a keto diet for 4 weeks and low calorie (I don't count calories but I have a rough idea of how many calories I'm consuming)

I'm wondering if my beta cells are very damaged and not producing enough insulin (diagnosed for 10 years - and haven't given it a real go until now!) or I am still over my personal fat threshold and my liver and pancreas are clogged up with fat and not functioning properly.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6399621/... if a person has true type 2 diabetes, then they have more fat than their beta cells can tolerate.
I have been on a diet very similar to yours for just over 4 months, 1000 cals real food and in that time have lost around 1 stone. No low carb. My average FBGs (latest) were a good 4.8 last week-the best week yet. However my 2 hr OGT (done at home using pure glucose powder 75 g was 9.3 last time, which is about the middle of the prediabetic range (having been 11.2 at the outset). Unlike the OGT, the FBGs can be affected by the Dawn Phenomenon. Also by the amount of fat still left on your liver. Whereas the OGT will tell you specifically how well your beta cells are dealing with a standardised 75g quantity of carbs. It is not dependent on whatever you chanced to have eaten at the previous meal. However if you read DR Taylor's work closely you will see that it takes a 5 months after the start of the diet to get from about 45% off normal at the start, to about 75% of normal Insulin response to food, and actually a year to get to 95% of normal.Although the subjects had stopped dieting at about 4 months and were just on a maintenance diet by then. So I am assuming that the beta cells do not bounce back immediately you lose the fat from them but need some time to "convalesce". I wish you the very best of luck with your weight loss. Even if it doesn't work for your T2 it might work partially, and in any case will certainly reduce your risk of 13 types of cancer as well as lots of other nasty health conditions you don't want. So it will never have been in vain.

 

[ianf0ster]

I would just point out that carrots are not low carb - not for me and many other Type2 diabetics. I can't even eat a medium sized raw carrot without spiking my BG.
They (and parsnips) are the sweetest of the true vegetables.
Many low carbers avoid all root veg since they all tend to be high in carbs (starches), but carrots and parsnips have sugars too. Celeriac is OK though - at least for me, but we are all different.

 

[jane d]

Ask if you could have a libre sensor ( or similar). 2 tests a day doesn't give you enough information. My tests were fine during the day, before bed and early morning. I was going very low overnight which I didn't know until I had a libre sensor. It gives you more information which also makes it easier to keep control of glucose levels.

 

[bulkbiker]

if a person has true type 2 diabetes, then they have more fat than their beta cells can tolerate.

Assuming that Prof Taylor is correct.
This is a theory not a fact however many times you state it as thought it is. And it is fat around the pancreas causing the problem not "beta cells" per se.

and in any case will certainly reduce your risk of 13 types of cancer

Evidence please?
This is certainly a new one on me...

 

[Mike d]

13 cancer types? Care to list them?

 

[Hotpepper20000]

ny case will certainly reduce your risk of 13 types of cancer as well as lots of other nasty health conditions you don't want.

References please

 

[lucylocket61]

References please

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/ab...-and-cancer/what-are-the-benefits-of-exercise may be the reference meant. Which has nothing to do with managing diabetes or Prof Taylors methods.

 

[HSSS]

if a person has true type 2 diabetes

What is “true” type 2 and conversely what other sorts are there? This is not explained in the article

Reading your link early on there is this paragraph that leaves me asking questions “The twin cycle hypothesis: during long-term intake of more calories than are expended each day, excess carbohydrate must undergo de novo lipogenesis, which particularly promotes fat accumulation in the liver. As insulin stimulates de novo lipogenesis, people with insulin resistance (determined by family or lifestyle factors) will accumulate liver fat more readily than others due to the higher plasma insulin levels.” First is that it identifies excess carbs cause the issue of fat accumulation, not excess calories or excess fat or excess protein. The second is this and the diagram it refers to talk about preexisting insulin resistance as the initial trigger to this fat accumulation. Where does this IR come from and how about addressing that? The only answer seems to be “Many people have fatty liver disease and raised plasma triglyceride, but only a proportion of these go on to develop type 2 diabetes. Detailed genetic studies are required to define the basis of the evident degrees of susceptibility in different individuals”

I also note the quote “Substantial weight loss achieved by any means can bring about remission of type 2 diabetes” not just vlc
And also “Independently, insight has been gained into the biology of return of insulin secretory capacity after decrease in exposure of beta cell to deleterious levels of triglyceride”. Interestingly very low carb almost always significantly reduces trigs so would also generate the same benefits of this reduction. It seems there’s more than one way to achieve the same results.

Is there a follow up as suggested “The personal fat threshold concept is immediately understandable by patients as a way of explaining their condition and the way forward. As a hypothesis it requires experimental verification, and a study is in progress.”

I’m left with as many questions as answers.

 

[Hotpepper20000]

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/ab...-and-cancer/what-are-the-benefits-of-exercise may be the reference meant. Which has nothing to do with managing diabetes or Prof Taylors methods.

Thank you.

 

[Tannith]

References please

Does Body Weight Affect Cancer Risk?

Being overweight or obese is clearly linked to an overall increased risk of cancer. According to research from the American Cancer Society, excess body weight is thought to be responsible for about 11% of cancers in women and about 5% of cancers in men in the United States, as well as about 7% of all cancer deaths.

Being overweight or obese is clearly linked with an increased risk of many types of cancer, including:

• Breast cancer (in women past menopause)
• Colon and rectal cancer
• Endometrial cancer (cancer of the lining of the uterus)
• Esophagus cancer
• Gallbladder cancer
• Kidney cancer
• Liver cancer
• Ovarian cancer
• Pancreas cancer
• Stomach cancer
• Thyroid cancer
• Multiple myeloma
• Meningioma (a tumor of the lining of the brain and spinal cord)

Being overweight or obese might also raise the risk of other cancers, such as:

• Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• Male breast cancer
• Cancers of the mouth, throat, and voice box
• Aggressive forms of prostate cancer

The link to body weight is stronger for some cancers than for others. For example, excess body weight is thought to be a factor in more than half of all endometrial cancers, whereas it is linked to a smaller portion of other cancers.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cance...vity/body-weight-and-cancer-risk/effects.html

https://www.health.harvard.edu/stay...aching-effects-of-a-little-bit-of-weight-loss


Weight loss effects
The most visible sign of weight loss is a slimmer body. But there are many important changes that you cannot see, including any of the following.

Reduced heartburn.

Reduced knee pain

Reduced blood pressure

Reduced diabetes risk

Better sexual function.

Improved sleep

Extra energy.

More self-esteem

 

[Goonergal]

Does Body Weight Affect Cancer Risk?

Being overweight or obese is clearly linked to an overall increased risk of cancer. According to research from the American Cancer Society, excess body weight is thought to be responsible for about 11% of cancers in women and about 5% of cancers in men in the United States, as well as about 7% of all cancer deaths.

Being overweight or obese is clearly linked with an increased risk of many types of cancer, including:

• Breast cancer (in women past menopause)
• Colon and rectal cancer
• Endometrial cancer (cancer of the lining of the uterus)
• Esophagus cancer
• Gallbladder cancer
• Kidney cancer
• Liver cancer
• Ovarian cancer
• Pancreas cancer
• Stomach cancer
• Thyroid cancer
• Multiple myeloma
• Meningioma (a tumor of the lining of the brain and spinal cord)

Being overweight or obese might also raise the risk of other cancers, such as:

• Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• Male breast cancer
• Cancers of the mouth, throat, and voice box
• Aggressive forms of prostate cancer

The link to body weight is stronger for some cancers than for others. For example, excess body weight is thought to be a factor in more than half of all endometrial cancers, whereas it is linked to a smaller portion of other cancers.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cance...vity/body-weight-and-cancer-risk/effects.html

https://www.health.harvard.edu/stay...aching-effects-of-a-little-bit-of-weight-loss


Weight loss effects
The most visible sign of weight loss is a slimmer body. But there are many important changes that you cannot see, including any of the following.

Reduced heartburn.

Reduced knee pain

Reduced blood pressure

Reduced diabetes risk

Better sexual function.

Improved sleep

Extra energy.

More self-esteem

More of an opinion piece than research/evidence. From the first page linked, the source admits that:

‘Research on how losing weight might lower the risk of developing cancer is limited.’

 

[lucylocket61]

Does Body Weight Affect Cancer Risk?

Being overweight or obese is clearly linked to an overall increased risk of cancer. According to research from the American Cancer Society, excess body weight is thought to be responsible for about 11% of cancers in women and about 5% of cancers in men in the United States, as well as about 7% of all cancer deaths.

Being overweight or obese is clearly linked with an increased risk of many types of cancer, including:

• Breast cancer (in women past menopause)
• Colon and rectal cancer
• Endometrial cancer (cancer of the lining of the uterus)
• Esophagus cancer
• Gallbladder cancer
• Kidney cancer
• Liver cancer
• Ovarian cancer
• Pancreas cancer
• Stomach cancer
• Thyroid cancer
• Multiple myeloma
• Meningioma (a tumor of the lining of the brain and spinal cord)

Being overweight or obese might also raise the risk of other cancers, such as:

• Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• Male breast cancer
• Cancers of the mouth, throat, and voice box
• Aggressive forms of prostate cancer

The link to body weight is stronger for some cancers than for others. For example, excess body weight is thought to be a factor in more than half of all endometrial cancers, whereas it is linked to a smaller portion of other cancers.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cance...vity/body-weight-and-cancer-risk/effects.html

https://www.health.harvard.edu/stay...aching-effects-of-a-little-bit-of-weight-loss


Weight loss effects
The most visible sign of weight loss is a slimmer body. But there are many important changes that you cannot see, including any of the following.

Reduced heartburn.

Reduced knee pain

Reduced blood pressure

Reduced diabetes risk

Better sexual function.

Improved sleep

Extra energy.

More self-esteem

opinions, and nothing about blood sugar levels and cancer. Not sure why this is on this thread.

 

[Tannith]

What is “true” type 2 and conversely what other sorts are there? This is not explained in the article

Reading your link early on there is this paragraph that leaves me asking questions “The twin cycle hypothesis: during long-term intake of more calories than are expended each day, excess carbohydrate must undergo de novo lipogenesis, which particularly promotes fat accumulation in the liver. As insulin stimulates de novo lipogenesis, people with insulin resistance (determined by family or lifestyle factors) will accumulate liver fat more readily than others due to the higher plasma insulin levels.” First is that it identifies excess carbs cause the issue of fat accumulation, not excess calories or excess fat or excess protein. The second is this and the diagram it refers to talk about preexisting insulin resistance as the initial trigger to this fat accumulation. Where does this IR come from and how about addressing that? The only answer seems to be “Many people have fatty liver disease and raised plasma triglyceride, but only a proportion of these go on to develop type 2 diabetes. Detailed genetic studies are required to define the basis of the evident degrees of susceptibility in different individuals”

I also note the quote “Substantial weight loss achieved by any means can bring about remission of type 2 diabetes” not just vlc
And also “Independently, insight has been gained into the biology of return of insulin secretory capacity after decrease in exposure of beta cell to deleterious levels of triglyceride”. Interestingly very low carb almost always significantly reduces trigs so would also generate the same benefits of this reduction. It seems there’s more than one way to achieve the same results.

Is there a follow up as suggested “The personal fat threshold concept is immediately understandable by patients as a way of explaining their condition and the way forward. As a hypothesis it requires experimental verification, and a study is in progress.”

I’m left with as many questions as answers.

“Substantial weight loss achieved by any means can bring about remission of type 2 diabetes”, not just vlc. I have often cited this statement by Prof Taylor, which he has made several times. It really doesn't matter at all what diet you use to lower your calorie intake as long as you eat fewer calories than you use. He has also said that the reason he himself prefers the vlc diet is that people tend to be better able to stick to it for long enough to lose sufficient weight, whereas they might give up slower diets before they have lost the ideal 15% of their original weight. I myself use a low, not very low, calorie diet of 1000 cals per day. It has been working for me. Very low is defined as 600 to 800 cals. As to only carbs causing raised triglycerides that is not true. ANY macronutrient eaten to excess, in excess of the person's daily calorie expenditure will get turned into triglycerides in the body.
· "What are triglycerides? Triglycerides are a type of fat. They enter your blood when: • extra calories that you eat are not used for energy. • you eat excess fat in your diet. • they are released from the fat already stored in your body. High levels of triglycerides in your blood can increase the chance that you develop heart disease. Triglycerides do not build up in the arteries like bad cholesterol (LDL). Instead, high levels can make LDL cholesterol change into a more harmful form that damages the arteries. High triglycerides also keep you from forming good cholesterol (HDL). If triglycerides are very high, a dangerous condition called “pancreatitis” (inflammation in the pancreas), can develop." https://www.uwhealth.org/healthfacts/nutrition/361.pdf

 

[lucylocket61]

“Substantial weight loss achieved by any means can bring about remission of type 2 diabetes”, not just vlc. I have often cited this statement by Prof Taylor, which he has made several times. It really doesn't matter at all what diet you use to lower your calorie intake as long as you eat fewer calories than you use. He has also said that the reason he himself prefers the vlc diet is that people tend to be better able to stick to it for long enough to lose sufficient weight, whereas they might give up slower diets before they have lost the ideal 15% of their original weight. I myself use a low, not very low, calorie diet of 1000 cals per day. It has been working for me. Very low is defined as 600 to 800 cals. As to only carbs causing raised triglycerides that is not true. ANY macronutrient eaten to excess, in excess of the person's daily calorie expenditure will get turned into triglycerides in the body.
· "What are triglycerides? Triglycerides are a type of fat. They enter your blood when: • extra calories that you eat are not used for energy. • you eat excess fat in your diet. • they are released from the fat already stored in your body. High levels of triglycerides in your blood can increase the chance that you develop heart disease. Triglycerides do not build up in the arteries like bad cholesterol (LDL). Instead, high levels can make LDL cholesterol change into a more harmful form that damages the arteries. High triglycerides also keep you from forming good cholesterol (HDL). If triglycerides are very high, a dangerous condition called “pancreatitis” (inflammation in the pancreas), can develop." https://www.uwhealth.org/healthfacts/nutrition/361.pdf

1st bolded section of my quote from you: you keep quoting this as if its fact. Please substantiate this quote. It also doesnt address the many thin type 2's without a substantial (meaningless word) amount of weight to lose.

2nd bolded section of my quote from you: low carb is not a slower diet, and it has the added bonus of reducing blood sugar levels quicker than a low calories diet with more carbs in.

https://www.uwhealth.org/about-uwhealth/main/10730 are a diet service for some hospitals. There is no evidence based links to studies in your quote from them.

From the uwhealth pdf you linked to:

"High levels may be caused by: • Being overweight, • Eating too many high carbohydrate foods and drinks such as sugary drinks, sweets, grains and fruit, "

 

[Mbaker]

Just some comments on the above Cancer Research UK:

They have access to all of the resources and then some and state the above unequivocally for studies that IARC relied on that eating 50 grams of bacon and day for life raises the risk of colorectal cancer from

43 in 100, 000 to 51 in 100,000, based on food frequency questions (so even if this was true, which it is not, this is a "rubbish" increase which is made out to huge). They have the same access to studies such as

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/1/32
loads of others here:
https://meatrx.com/?s=cancer

So for me CRUK are a mouth piece for those who want rid of meat.

As for Trigycerides, this is contributed to by sugar / carbohydrates:

Several keto / carnivores on this site have published their Trigs, I recall several below 1 (mine is 0.5, below 1.7 mmol is said to be good)

 

[Tannith]

Assuming that Prof Taylor is correct.
This is a theory not a fact however many times you state it as thought it is. And it is fat around the pancreas causing the problem not "beta cells" per se.


Evidence please?
This is certainly a new one on me...

↑
and in any case will certainly reduce your risk of 13 types of cancer
Evidence please?
This is certainly a new one on me...
· can develop. https://www.uwhealth.org/healthfacts/nutrition/361.pdf

There is strong evidence that being overweight or obese is a cause of 12 different types of cancer:

• Bowel
• Breast (post-menopausal)
• Gallbladder
• Kidney
• Liver
• Mouth, pharynx and larynx
• Oesophagus (adenocarcinoma)
• Ovary
• Pancreas
• Prostate (advanced)
• Stomach (cardia)
• Womb

https://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/preventi...ur-risk-cancer/obesity-weight-and-cancer-risk

 

[Mbaker]

I would say there is a possibility that insulin resistance is keeping glucose higher. This is looking likely due to the fasting improving the glucose numbers. Maybe walking after meals, and resistance training would move things along at a quicker pace.

 

[HSSS]

as long as you eat fewer calories than you use

As long as you lose weight is what prof Taylor says and I quoted. You have added bit about a calorie deficit. That is your interpretation. He has a preference for one method. Other people have a preference for others. If his theory is right it doesn’t matter how so long as there is weight loss. Your claim that low carb is slower is based on what evidence? Still waiting on any studies that explain what to do about the significant minority that do not have 15kg to lose btw and how his theory will accommodate them. The crux of it is his theory applies to some type 2, not all.

As to only carbs causing raised triglycerides

that is not what I said nor quoted. What I quoted was actually about carbs causing fat in the organs and then a separate quote about triglycerides and their effect on beta cells. You merged the two separate issues.

 

[bulkbiker]

. As to only carbs causing raised triglycerides that is not true.

From the article you then link to...and as we all know carbs once eaten turn into.... you got it .. sugar!

 

[Tannith]

As long as you lose weight is what prof Taylor says and I quoted. You have added bit about a calorie deficit. That is your interpretation. He has a preference for one method. Other people have a preference for others. If his theory is right it doesn’t matter how so long as there is weight loss. Your claim that low carb is slower is based on what evidence? Still waiting on any studies that explain what to do about the significant minority that do not have 15kg to lose btw and how his theory will accommodate them. The crux of it is his theory applies to some type 2, not all.


that is not what I said nor quoted. What I quoted was actually about carbs causing fat in the organs and then a separate quote about triglycerides and their effect on beta cells. You merged the two separate issues.

Firstly, I did not even pretend to be quoting Prof Taylor when I said that (you will lose weight) as long as you eat fewer calories than you use. That is an obvious basic scientific fact recognised by all educated people. Secondly I did not so much as mention low carb diets. Just said that my own diet was 1000 cals real food, not the vlc diet that Prof Taylor prefers. It obviously works more slowly than the 800 cal diet supplied by shakes.