No. This is completely wrong. Read the low carb experiences of many on here. I know I have previously told you my story.
I also lost 8 stone in a similar time frame, but I have only had a temporary remission. But I am not as strict on my diet as others, so accept this.
Not proven, If that was the case then WW and Slimming World, and Cambridge Plan, and the Supersize Me Diet would all be claiming T2D Remission. The Carrot Juice and Bunny Huggers diets would also be in the medical headlines. But they are not. Not all diets will work, and one in particular falls into that category IMO, and that is Eatwell / SAD which is the government approved diet for all of us.
When I was still prediabetic, 11 years ago, I was on the Eatwell diets, medically supervised for 6 months, 1000 cals. I not only lost no weight, even gained about 3lbs, and progressed to full type 2 diabetes.
2. Any weight loss works including weight loss by low carb. But not low carb by itself. If you are doing a low carb diet but replacing all the calories lost from carbs with calories from fat or protein, in that case you have no weight loss, so all you can achieve is lower bgs without improving beta cell function. Ie you lower bg, but do it by putting less sugar into your blood but not by getting more out. Most definitions of remission ae based on HBA1C or FBG readings, so by that standard you could call it "remission". I don't, for me it has to involve repairing the beta cells so that they lower the blood sugar for me.
Except the facts show that:
Except that thousands lose weight by replacing calories from carb with calories from fats and proteins and even exceeding them. Go on any low carb keto group and you’ll see evidence of that. There are studies that show it too. It may not happen for everyone but it very definitely does happen a lot for people highly insulin resistant. I personally almost doubled my calories on diagnosis and lost 3 stone in months. I’m sorry but you are very mistaken here
So you have a personal definition that matches none of the accepted criteria. And how are you proving beta cell recovery? OGTT doesn’t measure that, at best it’s a proxy or an assumption and as you say it is widely considered a measure of IR. How do you know your beta cells have improved rather than insulin resistance lowered? Quite frankly any assertion of the kind is theoretical and far from proven. Your house of cards is all built on “beta cell failure” and as yet I still see nothing that proves this and makes it more than a theory - so the beta cell failure theory falls the rest does too. A bit like Ancel Keys and the fats/cholesterol/heart disease argument.
"There are studies that show it too." Please provide links to these studies.
You have had, several times over several threads, links to this and other research on points raised. I suggest you do some backtracking of replies you have received.
I’ve linked these and similar to you personally several times in the past. As have others. Perhaps if you had read them (you certainly never acknowledged them) then we wouldn’t be going over the same ground again and again.
I can't totally prove recovery in myself only the approximate results of the OGTT, as I haven't access to a C Peptide test. However the trial participants in DIRECT did, and their increased beta cell function is described below:
No you haven't. You have SAID you have but not actually posted any. Probably because there aren't any, so how could anyone refer me to them. All I ever get referred to is anecdotal stuff from forums etc, never any scientific tests/trials.I have also searched for these myself independently and not found any. Someone did once refer me to the Virta study but when I looked it up I found that around half the participants were still on drugs like metformin and a few were even still on insulin!
Many of the participants in the ViRTA study had come off insulin completely (unlike in your much loved DiRECT trial where they were excluded from the very start).
How many more times do I have to explain that the calculation used by Taylor to demonstrate insulin response improvement is flawed. The calculation includes a direct manipulation by the body weight term, so that as the weight changes, so does the response. In a trial where the object of the the intervention is purely weight loss, then it is obvious that as this happens there will be a corresponding 'improvement' in the OGTT apparent results. It is therfore not proven by the OGTT. As we have also told you the OGTT cannot show beta cell physical recovery and all it may show is a change to pancreatic output, which could be due to other factors that were not eliminated in the trial. Again, Taylor's theories have not been proven by his experiment, and remain as theories and hypotheses.
He didn't only use OGTT he used insulin secretion tests as well.
Anecdotes aren't "evidence" You need proper trials for evidence. Showing exactly how many cals from fats & carbs people ate, what their BMRs were, how much weight (if any) they lost, what their insulin secretion rates were eg C Peptide tests. All that sort of thing. I can't find any scientific reports of such trials. I suspect none have been done. I know there are reports of low carb versus low fat weight loss diets, but found none related to T2. Unwin's stuff doesn't describe exactly what his subjects ate. Nor did they even have any OGTTs let alone any C peptide tests. Vague comments on forums to the effect "I did low carb and lost weight" are simply not evidence, even when BGs were reduced.
Yes. and this may well show that insulin output improved, but his explanation as to the causes is not necessarily correct, and it is his (and yours) explanations that i cannot say were proven by his studies. I do not dispute that the insulin response recovered, which is why i support the use of the diet itself, but the science behind it remains a mystery in my mind.
