• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Carbs-independent remission

If you look at the nutrient listing for the Optifast shakes used in the original Newcastle study, or the Exante and Cambridge Diet plan shakes used in the DIRECT study, then the ND intervention is not only VLC diet, but is also low carb as in LCHF but without the HF part. So it is indeed a starvation diet.
Indeed, but this is just a comment on the diet used to reach remission. No dispute there. The issue is to do with DiRECT’s post-remission-phase for maintaining the new weight, and that subsequent diet was not starvation, obviously.
 
Works with any diabetic not in remission (and many in remission as defined by hba1c), regardless of type.
Just find a random one to experiment on and I'll guarantee their BG will be higher after a high carb meal than after a low carb meal.

It's why T1's calculate their insulin doses based on carbs.
What it does not tell us is whether that one person is keeping bg low only for the trivial reason that they are consuming low carbs or because their pancreas has improved by becoming less fatty. This matters, because if it’s only because of the former then the pancreas will slowly degrade further until a day is reached when for all one’s low carbing the A1c starts rising and then one is on the stony road of insulin and a permanently wrecked pancreas.
 
What it does not tell us is whether that one person is keeping bg low only for the trivial reason that they are consuming low carbs or because their pancreas has improved by becoming less fatty. This matters, because if it’s only because of the former then the pancreas will slowly degrade further until a day is reached when for all one’s low carbing the A1c starts rising and then one is on the stony road of insulin and a permanently wrecked pancreas.

Why would you think this?
I've never read anything suggesting this in people maintaining healthy BG by low carbing.
 
I think I'm in this camp. My priorities were firstly stop the nasty symptoms I'd had for ten years - neuropathy, oedema, kidney problems, wounds not healing etc. etc.

To achieve that I had to reduce my BG.

To reduce my BG I went (and have stayed at) ~20g carbs/day. Took four months. I was somewhere over 120kg when I started, and was still about 110kg when my A1c was back at 36 (down from 50).

I've lost a further >15kg since, still losing, and my BG has stayed around 36-38 in the intervening two and a half years. Weight loss (fat loss, strictly speaking) is to my mind a by product, not the cause, of my BG reduction.
This gets to the heart of the issue and the science will have to get the bottom of it. Although we are a large community of self-helpers, and ostensibly doing very well in many cases, it does not add up to a means of advancing objective knowlege.
 
Mmmm … sample size a little on the low side perhaps !
So were the ND studies.. Only 11 underwent the MRI scans and the insulin studies that tracked Phase 1 insulin responses using the IVGTT technique that are used to justify the results for all diabetics. The ND study is in my opionion very overhyped. There is a lot of money being made from a very small study. The fact that DIRECT had to be repeated to get the current plan used by the NHS which is so far a two pass plan shows that starvation diets only work in the short term and are a revolving door. The remission is temporary. It is the same story for bariatric surgery which is what the ND study is trying to emulate.

IMHO ND is a useful tool, and can be used as a successful intervention, but long term does not seem to offer a solution to T2D alone. It is the follow on treatment that can extend the remission. Get that wrong and the T2D returns, the weight returns and you return to the starvation regime again. We have members on this forum who have had this experience, but who now use LCHF or a keto diet to control their blood sugars. By all means get the T-shirt, but it will not keep you warn through the winter.
 
Why would you think this?
I've never read anything suggesting this in people maintaining healthy BG by low carbing.
I have sometimes seen people report that they’ve low-carbed for years but then had to go onto diabetes medicines for no reason that they can identify.
 
I totally agree with @MrsA2 - since my original T2 diagnosis 9 years ago my main aim has been to manage my glucose levels by eating a carb controlled diet. And while I was advised and definitely needed to lose weight, doing so came as a bit of a surprise bonus initially as I was solely concentrating on my glucose levels.

I have eaten a normal full fat diet all my long life, and it was only when I ended up eating (by my reckoning!) an excessive amount of carbs that I ended up with T2. Basically all I had to do was cut these right back down again for my glucose levels to follow suite and stay down. They may fluctuate a little between low pre-diabetic and high normal levels, but these fluctuations are generally due to non-dietary (e.g. health, stress) issues.

My consumption of protein for body maintenance & repair doesn't vary much so I'm just doing a sort of balancing act with carbs and fats, and keeping my glucose low enough by limiting carbs. So I rely on fats as my main energy source instead, and this also helps control my weight if necessary, as any dietary fat deficit means my body resorts to burning off a bit of the stored stuff rather than making a fuss about needing more carbs.
 
Last edited:
Why would you think this?
I've never read anything suggesting this in people maintaining healthy BG by low carbing.
Indeed. My insulin response has improved measurably since I did LCHF. and I know this because when I was in hospital on Eatwell, my sugar levels remained in control even though I was getting high spikes from the carbs, they reduced back to baseline without diabetic meds or insulin. so my pancreas went from me requiring insulin (i.e. exhausted and clapped out pancreas stage) to wotking well to drop my bgl to the 4's and 5's on waking and I still have good output from my faithful pancreas some 5 years since. And I do not do keto. I am a low carber but not ultra low carb. I eat potatoes and two or three slices of bread a day and maintain a below diabetic HbA1c and daily average. But before you ask - I am in control but not in remission. I remain T2D.
 
So were the ND studies.. Only 11 underwent the MRI scans and the insulin studies that tracked Phase 1 insulin responses using the IVGTT technique that are used to justify the results for all diabetics. The ND study is in my opionion very overhyped. There is a lot of money being made from a very small study. The fact that DIRECT had to be repeated to get the current plan used by the NHS which is so far a two pass plan shows that starvation diets only work in the short term and are a revolving door. The remission is temporary. It is the same story for bariatric surgery which is what the ND study is trying to emulate.

IMHO ND is a useful tool, and can be used as a successful intervention, but long term does not seem to offer a solution to T2D alone. It is the follow on treatment that can extend the remission. Get that wrong and the T2D returns, the weight returns and you return to the starvation regime again. We have members on this forum who have had this experience, but who now use LCHF or a keto diet to control their blood sugars. By all means get the T-shirt, but it will not keep you warn through the winter.
Is this a fair summary of DiRECT? My understanding is that most of those who were in remission at 1 year had remained so at 2 years. This is not “temporary” remission for the majority - so far, anyway.
 
Is this a fair summary of DiRECT? My understanding is that most of those who were in remission at 1 year had remained so at 2 years. This is not “temporary” remission for the majority - so far, anyway.
If you are talking DIRECT then there was significant falloff at 2 years, If you are talking about Countepoint then there was a higher success rate initially, but I have not seen any 2 year results being published I think @bulkbiker mighrt have an anwer here. However, both studies only had approx 50% or less success rate anyway.
 
Last edited:
If you are talking DIRECT then there was significant falloff at 2 years, If you are talking about Countepoint then there was a higher success rate initially, but I have not seen any 2 year results being published I think @bulkbiker mighrt have an anwer here. However, both studies only had approx 50% or less success rate anyway.
I am talking about DiRECT. At 2 years the continued remission success rate was far more significant than the fall-off. Just under 80% of the remitters at 1 year were still in remission at 2 years, an impressive outcome I would say. And those people did it in the 2nd year without low carbing, all of them, keeping their new weight stable. And my original question was whether anyone on the forum has done similarly.
 
low-carbed for years
Lots of people have their own definition of "low carb" though...

There are forum members who have had some success reducing to 100g or so then over time HbA1c has slowly worsened.
They reduce carbs more and get yet more benefits.
I tend to suggest people try for ketogenic levels of 20g or so per day.
That is definitely "low carb".
 
Lots of people have their own definition of "low carb" though...

There are forum members who have had some success reducing to 100g or so then over time HbA1c has slowly worsened.
They reduce carbs more and get yet more benefits.
I tend to suggest people try for ketogenic levels of 20g or so per day.
That is definitely "low carb".
And I too have “low carbed” (125-130g) for (two) years, with A1c stable so far. But with those who have had to keep stepping their carbs ever further down I would be curious to know whether they had not originally cleared their pancreatic fat to the maximum possible and thus had only been living on borrowed time. What does need acknowledging by the low carb believers is that the DiRECT two-year remitters maintained their remission without low carbing at all. This cannot be dodged.
 
Works with any diabetic not in remission (and many in remission as defined by hba1c), regardless of type.
Just find a random one to experiment on and I'll guarantee their BG will be higher after a high carb meal than after a low carb meal.

It's why T1's calculate their insulin doses based on carbs.
Stress can make a dramatic difference particularly for me. Early days when I weighed and tested everything I suddenly found a after meal reading in double figures when haven eaten very few carbs. There had been a car crash right outside my house and I realized that had affected my blood sugars.
 
Stress can make a dramatic difference particularly for me. Early days when I weighed and tested everything I suddenly found a after meal reading in double figures when haven eaten very few carbs. There had been a car crash right outside my house and I realized that had affected my blood sugars.
Yes, many influencing factors.
 

Be aware that the success reported at 2 years is in a subgroup of those maintaining their 10kg weight loss, so is a percentage of a percentage of the intervention group. i.e 64% of the 46% of the year 1 group.

Note also that in Direct, participants were still able to use diabetic mediation during and after the study. There was a small group of the intervetion group that seem to have been able to stop medicating, but in general the remission is not entirely due to the diet.

Although you cannot assume that an absence of evidence is proof of a concept, I note that your call for info of participants who have acheived and maintained remission has so far gone unanswered. It is probably that this is the wrong forum to ask this questipn , and the the DUK site may give better feedback since they advocate and funded the DIRECT study in the first place. also people in remission tend to stop using support forums if they are no longer considered diabetic.
 
The science is as important to me as my own diabetes.
But there's no such thing as "the science".
And why anyway..? if you go into remission through ultra low carb then why does "the science" matter if it has worked.
Personally I'm quite happy to have foiled the medical nonsense that T2 is" chronic and progressive and that I will end up on insulin" as I was told on diagnosis.
 
The other confounder raised by DIRECT is that the entry criteria for the study was quite restricted. Only those with a BMI over 37 (i,e, obese or morbidly obese) AND diagnosed with diabetes no more than 10 years prior, AND not insulin users were eligible. so a small subset of the majority of T2D. So the results cannot be read across to the general T2D population such as evidenced on this forum.

Readinfg the 2year report I also notice that the 64% remission result is referenced to the whole study group (Control+ intervention) and is referenced to 272 not the 149 of the intervention group. So members of the Control group also acheived remission in this time period. The results that are referenced to the intervention group at 2 year review is a reference to weight maintenance , and not to remission. So there is some obscuration going on there. Note also that the value of 272 mantioned above is less than the 298 that entered DIRECT at the start. Presumably this dropout is the adverse events mentioned in the text and seems high for 8 week diet plan and 2 year follow up.
 
Back
Top