600 calories to "reverse" Type2

I read this with great interest as anything is worth trying to rid myself of diabetes, it did strike a cord with me as something we recently have added or deleted from our diets has caused this epidemic. I have always felt that giving the pancreas a 'rest' might help it. I did contact the Professor in charge about the diet but sadly he has not replied, I feel rather miffed about this as it is giving false hope to millions of diabetics. As I am now on my own I am thinking of trying to create my own 600 cal diet,I may try and involve my doctor, I may not,as I already eat a low carb diet and not much food I may be able to manage it. I think Dr Mercolas site will provide a lot of help, he has recently promoted whey and spirulina as good sources of protein, I would think adequate protein to stop muscle wastage, a good quality multi vitamin/mineral supplement must be part of it. I would think at the end of the 8 weeks if it is a success it would be wise to still essentially 'eat like a diabetic' but perhaps you could give yourself the weekend off and certainly have a normal Christmas, it would be worth it for that. And finally if cured there must never again be any processed food as this may be a culprit along with certain medications.

See for more info

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22130

This is the diet I am on.. For the last week..

In addition I am taking Metaformin, Krestor and Janubin...

Prescribed by European Medical Centre in Moscow. They want me on it for 8 weeks and are checking my very regular BG Tests every two days to see how it is progressing, with strict come in straight away instructions if the BG goes above or below certain levels.

As I said in my intro. Anorexic Rabbit Diet, but as I have a number of issues that are interdependent this shock therapy is what they feel is best

The most compelling aspect of this study to me, though way too small to really be taken seriously, is that it refers to the fat around ORGANS being dispelled in the 8 week period and that at least for several more 'months' the diabetic T2 symptoms did NOT return. That angle I really hadn't heard of before. Whether or not a 'crash' diet, essentially, is the best way to get to this goal we'll continue to debate, to be sure - but ANY road we can take to 'de-fat-izing' our organs seems to have some lasting effects. And THAT IS new data and something NOT to be taken lightly.

We're told by reputable sources that 80% of T2's are obese at DX.. And 20% (skinny diabetics) are not. So we can conclude a couple of things - though very carefully. We can conclude that 'obesity', more specifically belly fat, is a potential 'trigger' to T2 -- but not for all.. Why not? Well -- we don't know yet. I think most of us also acknowledge genes as part of this equation too. So for those who have the genetic predisposition - was they way 'we ate' part of our trigger? Some like consider the obesity a 'symptom' and not a cause. That's less logical to me - but if it's true -- WHAT A relief!!

What this small study again reinforces is that 'eating style' -- is IN this equation and in a grander way than just how many carbs you eat. After two years at this -- though nuts are a safe food for most diabetics - I can tell you for 100% sure -- that if you eat too many of them - you'll gain weight - just as readily as you would eating cakes and cookies.

Well I could run in 100 different directions here -- That 80% group I was mentioning are also the group from which the only people I've ever met who've 'sent their T2 into remission - have come. Yes, I mean 'full remission' - eat anything they want with no spikes and return to fasting levels within 1-2 hours. They were obese -- aren't any longer and boom - back to normal.. Their pancreas can 'deal with anything'. One person -- took the test too far and gained 30lbs -- the diabetes symptoms returned.. So for some -- obesity is a more 1:1 correlation than with others.

But this 'fat around the organs things' --- very intriguing........

NewdestinyX
You say was a small study and you are right

However This study. to try and copy and understand what was already happening with weight loss surgery and T2 reversal reported . Low cal liquid diet before and after weight loss Operation wile the patient recovered.

if this is whats really going on then the numbers inc the bariatric surgery T2 patients
are a lot higher ?
if you could achieve all this from off the shelf diet Wow!!!!


Ref:
Full ARTICLE/Paper Download
http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/Lim.pdf

However, type 2 diabetes is clearly reversible following
bariatric surgery . The normalisation of plasma glucose
oncentration follows within days of surgery, long before
major weight loss has occurred, and it has become widely
assumed that the protective effects of gastrointestinal
surgery are mediated by altered secretion of incretin
hormones [8, 9]. Improved control of blood glucose in
type 2 diabetes by moderate energy restriction has been
demonstrated by others [10]. We have hypothesised that the
profound effect of a sudden negative energy balance on the
metabolism could explain the post-bariatric surgery effect
[11] and, specifically, that the decrease in the intracellular
fatty acid concentrations in the liver would lead to a lower
export of lipoprotein triacylglycerol to the pancreas, with
the release of beta cells from the chronic inhibitory effects
of excess fatty acid exposure.
This study was designed to test the hypothesis that acute
negative energy balance alone reverses type 2 diabetes by
normalising both beta cell function and insulin sensitivity.

Click to expand...

bowell said:

NewdestinyX
You say was a small study and you are right

However This study. to try and copy and understand what was already happening with weight loss surgery and T2 reversal reported . Low cal liquid diet before and after weight loss Operation wile the patient recovered.

if this is whats really going on then the numbers inc the bariatric surgery T2 patients
are a lot higher ?
if you could achieve all this from off the shelf diet Wow!!!!

Click to expand...

Problem is, Bowell, they didn't follow the test subjects long enough, in my opinion, to make the broad conclusions they're attempting. And the info shared on Bariatric surgery patients is often 'short term' too. We need need more 'long term' studies. Like what happens to bariatric surg patients 3 years out?? After they return to eating higher carb foods - albeit smaller amounts for sure. There is virtually no research showing that angle yet. And right after Bariatric surgery -OF COURSE people's 'hyperglycemic symptoms' go away -- as they're eating virtually 'nothing'. If I were to eat as little as a post op bariatric surgery patient - my numbers would be near perfect too. There are too many 'holes' in this research method to be of any real value to us -- yet. I'm disappointed in this study - though intrigued.

I have read a lot on the incretin/ghrelin hormone factor in keep us at a certain weight and its affect on the diabetes equation. More research needs to be done there. I think the smoking gun lies there.

Is it possible to find out how many carbs are included in the pre- and post- bariatric surgery diets?

Going by the couple of people who I know have had that op., the diet they were on until they committed to the surgery was extremely high in carbs, of the bread/chips/pastry/pizza/burger/cake/biscuits/crisps variety.

Could the observed reduction in blood glucose levels be as simple as severely reducing their carb intake?

Viv 8)

viviennem said:

Is it possible to find out how many carbs are included in the pre- and post- bariatric surgery diets?

Going by the couple of people who I know have had that op., the diet they were on until they committed to the surgery was extremely high in carbs, of the bread/chips/pastry/pizza/burger/cake/biscuits/crisps variety.

Could the observed reduction in blood glucose levels be as simple as severely reducing their carb intake?

Viv 8)

Click to expand...

It's Only about 4oz of food per meal. I doubt that could spike anyone's sugar no matter what the carb ingested. I could be wrong though. But the severe calorie restriction IS in the equation of the dispelling of the hyperglycemia.

catherinecherub said:

An article here, commenting on the "cure", suggests that 600 calories are the requirements of a 4month old baby and recommends a diet of 1200 - 1800 for losing weight and putting diabetes into remission.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/256 ... t-diabetes

Click to expand...

Yes, great point. No matter how you look at - we're talking about a starvation diet here -- for an adult that is. But I'm still SO intrigued by the elimination of the fat around the organs that this diet produces. That has to be 'good' - even though the methodology is harsh to say the least...

Just seen my GP about this to ask his advice before going ahead with it.
He has told me not to do it yet, and has written to a specialist to ask his opinion. A further appointment has been made to discuss it further in 3 weeks by which time he should have a response.
GP said i'm the first to raise this with him but wont be the last.

Marzeater said:

Just seen my GP about this to ask his advice before going ahead with it.
He has told me not to do it yet, and has written to a specialist to ask his opinion. A further appointment has been made to discuss it further in 3 weeks by which time he should have a response.
GP said i'm the first to raise this with him but wont be the last.

Click to expand...

Oh PLEASE report back as soon as you get your answer. And lots of details. I can't wait to hear what a couple of docs say about this 'new find'.

Thanks for asking!!

For info

This is the diet 600cal

vitamins, minerals and trace elements inc in Optifast meals

The diet, which consisted of a liquid diet
formula (46.4% carbohydrate, 32.5% protein and 20.1%
fat; vitamins, minerals and trace elements; 2.1 MJ/day
[510 kcal/day]; Optifast; Nestlé Nutrition, Croydon, UK).
This was supplemented with three portions of non-starchy
vegetables such that total energy intake was about 2.5 MJ
(600 kcal)/day. Participants were provided with sugges-
tions of vegetable recipes to enhance compliance by
varying daily eating. They were also encouraged to drink
at least 2 l of water or other energy-free beverages each
day, and asked to maintain their habitual level of
physical activity.

Click to expand...

Note: this is 510kcal plus non-starchy veg
The standard Optifast kick start diet is 600kcal plus non-starchy veg

NewdestinyX
intrigued by the elimination of the fat around the organs that this diet produces. That has to be 'good' - even though the methodology is harsh to say the least...

Click to expand...

Maybe due to better blood supply to those essential but fatty organs than other areas of fat :?:

Gandhi fasted for 21 days while in his 70s. People lost in the wild have also survived for long periods of time without eating.
Medically speaking, most doctors agree that healthy humans can go up to eight weeks without food as long as they have water

Click to expand...

http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/death-dying/live-without-food-and-water1.htm

Irish Hunger Strike of 1981
In 1981, members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) imprisoned in England went on a hunger strike to protest their incarceration. Former IRA commanding officer Bobby Sands was actually elected into the British House of Commons while striking, helping to raise awareness for their cause.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher refused to bend, however. The prisoners drank small amounts of water, but refused food altogether. Sands died from starvation in a prison hospital on the 66th day of the strike. Thatcher remained steadfast and called Sands a criminal and his death a suicide. Nine more prisoners died from starvation after Sands. Thomas McElwee lasted the longest, at 73 total days -- a full week longer than the next closest prisoner
[source: irishhungerstrike.com].

Click to expand...

bowell said:

For info

This is the diet 600cal

vitamins, minerals and trace elements inc in Optifast meals

The diet, which consisted of a liquid diet
formula (46.4% carbohydrate, 32.5% protein and 20.1%
fat; vitamins, minerals and trace elements; 2.1 MJ/day
[510 kcal/day]; Optifast; Nestlé Nutrition, Croydon, UK).
This was supplemented with three portions of non-starchy
vegetables such that total energy intake was about 2.5 MJ
(600 kcal)/day. Participants were provided with sugges-
tions of vegetable recipes to enhance compliance by
varying daily eating. They were also encouraged to drink
at least 2 l of water or other energy-free beverages each
day, and asked to maintain their habitual level of
physical activity.

Click to expand...

Note: this is 510kcal plus non-starchy veg
The standard Optifast kick start diet is 600kcal plus non-starchy veg

Click to expand...

Gandhi fasted for 21 days while in his 70s. People lost in the wild have also survived for long periods of time without eating.
Medically speaking, most doctors agree that healthy humans can go up to eight weeks without food as long as they have water
http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/death-dying/live-without-food-and-water1.htm

Click to expand...

Irish Hunger Strike of 1981
In 1981, members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) imprisoned in England went on a hunger strike to protest their incarceration. Former IRA commanding officer Bobby Sands was actually elected into the British House of Commons while striking, helping to raise awareness for their cause.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher refused to bend, however. The prisoners drank small amounts of water, but refused food altogether. Sands died from starvation in a prison hospital on the 66th day of the strike. Thatcher remained steadfast and called Sands a criminal and his death a suicide. Nine more prisoners died from starvation after Sands. Thomas McElwee lasted the longest, at 73 total days -- a full week longer than the next closest prisoner
[source: irishhungerstrike.com].

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I would only add that "just because something CAN be done, doesn't mean it's efficacious to do so, much less 'healthy to do so'. That's my thinking.

NewdestinyX said:

I would only add that "just because something CAN be done, doesn't mean it's efficacious to do so, much less 'healthy to do so'. That's my thinking.

Click to expand...

I think we've evolved to have periods of fasting, that's why diabetes is so prevalent in western societies, it's over consumption, some blame carbs some blame fat but it is overconsumption. It may be healthier to 'starve' for a short while than leaving the subjects organs clogged up with fat?

I'm not advocating this at all but we are talking very short term. I followed a similar diet many years ago for 4 months, lost 6 stone and suffered no side effects. I didn't refeed well though and over the course of 2 years I put 4 stone back on. The diet wasn't the problem it was me reverting back to old habits.

The big question mark for me is that having done it for four months a few years ago how did I develop diabetes several years later? Had I kept the weight off would I have developed diabetes?

Who knows?

One point that hasn't been covered much on this topic is the effect on beta cells. Maybe losing fat in and around the pancreas and liver helps to preserve the function of beta cells but surely it can't reverse the process of beta cell loss, which is what makes diabetes 'progressive' - even if that progression may be very slow? And this particular trial was with people who had relatively recently been diagnosed with type 2. It's a very interesting area to research in future but I think the researchers were a bit quick to claim a 'reversal' when there are still so many unknowns, sadly.

Given that my blood sugar levels have risen significantly this year, and I am due to be put on yet more medication, this study is of interest to me. I work in scientific research, and having read the full paper, I can understand the thinking and methods behind what is being tried.

8 weeks at 600 calories a day is something I think I can do, since the possible payoff is huge. A worst case seems to be that I lose some weight - something I would like to do anyway, and should help my blood sugar levels, even if I don't achieve normal readings.

So, I've started following a 600 calorie a day diet, and I'm documenting my progress on my blog at diabetic-living.net. I hope that my findings are useful to others.

CMichael said:

One point that hasn't been covered much on this topic is the effect on beta cells. Maybe losing fat in and around the pancreas and liver helps to preserve the function of beta cells but surely it can't reverse the process of beta cell loss, which is what makes diabetes 'progressive' - even if that progression may be very slow? And this particular trial was with people who had relatively recently been diagnosed with type 2. It's a very interesting area to research in future but I think the researchers were a bit quick to claim a 'reversal' when there are still so many unknowns, sadly.

Click to expand...

What you state there, CMichael is an important caveat. It's just that before this study ANY REVERSAL of ANY KIND has never been seen. In this study - the 'non return' of the fat around the liver and pancreas and the steadyness of the HBA1c even after weight gain happened is 'new'. I also understand the 'sociological' implications here if this study is on the money at all.. But I'm not 100% sure IF or NOT It 'reintroduces' the unpopular idea that 'behavior', in particular eating habits, is IN the question of the onset of T2. I know there's probably a couple hundred threads here about that... so I won't start up again.. :roll:

'It's just that before this study ANY REVERSAL of ANY KIND has never been seen. In this study - the 'non return' of the fat around the liver and pancreas and the steadyness of the HBA1c even after weight gain happened is 'new''

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this NewdestinyX? There are lots of people on this forum and elsewhere who are controlling their HbA1c at normal levels by diet and exercise? Which is as much of a reversal as seems to have been achieved here? They aren't having the fat around their organs measured in the detail this study went into, so we can't know whether theirs disappeared and stayed off too. Perhaps that is the research that needs to be done next - looking much more closely at the metabolic processes of people who have lost weight through less drastic means and have kept it off for longer than this short-term study.

CMichael said:

'It's just that before this study ANY REVERSAL of ANY KIND has never been seen. In this study - the 'non return' of the fat around the liver and pancreas and the steadyness of the HBA1c even after weight gain happened is 'new''

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this NewdestinyX? There are lots of people on this forum and elsewhere who are controlling their HbA1c at normal levels by diet and exercise? Which is as much of a reversal as seems to have been achieved here? They aren't having the fat around their organs measured in the detail this study went into, so we can't know whether theirs disappeared and stayed off too. Perhaps that is the research that needs to be done next - looking much more closely at the metabolic processes of people who have lost weight through less drastic means and have kept it off for longer than this short-term study.

Click to expand...

Good challenge, CMichael. I should have been more precise to say 'ANY REVERSAL' of the type this study noted (fat deposits on organs - HBA1c steady even after weight gain, etc). By adding the 'ANY KIND' I overstated and thereby confused. Let me 'rein in' those types of statements and be more precise. Thanks for the challenge!