• 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

chrisjohnh said:
When is this bizarre weight regain meant to happen to me? In another 6 months? A year? Two years? I don’t believe it.
Click to expand...

In the words of Aristotle

One swallow does not a summer make, nor one fine day.

I lost 8 stone reducing cals and carbs blood sugar levels down to normal range A1c of 38

In the last few months I have increased my calorific intake but not any where near your levels

And have gained nearly 2 stones

Last A1c 48

and blood sugars have become erratic to say the least

You maybe an anomaly or I maybe who can tell come back here a year or so from now and tell us how things are going I thought I was in remission for good I was wrong.
 
HSSS said:
And again as my own experiment of one at your stage everything was hunky dory for me. I actually increased calories when I lost weight/got remission because the fat I replaced carbs with had more - but I was able to use the fat ones instead of store them.

It’s not bizarre just because you personally haven’t experienced it - yet. Several of us have told you our experience and you mock us? Or is it just disbelief? Perhaps if your insulin resistance and carb intake carry on the way you are and are planning you’ll do just fine, or maybe you’ll get your own bizarre reaction as it builds up again over time once again.

Honestly I do believe there’s more than one type of type 2. Some respond to simple weight loss really well and that’s all they need to have normal responses. ive seen a number in here go from very high levels to in the 30’s on way way more carbs than me by losing a few stone (like yourself). Whereas I lost lots and cut cubs an awful lot only managed from mid 50’s to low 40’s. Some just don’t respond so well or need much more drastic intervention and I believe there are other, genetic?, issues as play with the likes of me beyond just some visceral fat - which obviously won’t help either.
Click to expand...
I think this is probably at the heart of all this variation in experience and in the diversity of views as to what is cause or effect - namely as you suggest, variations in genes producing a spectrum of metabolic dysfunctions that have been lumped together as “T2D”. I absolutely accept that our mysterious differences have to be handled individually as best we can, on our own mostly given all the confusions and dogmas in the medical profession. But by virtue of those differences I think the view expressed by some that “it’s all just a matter if carbs, carbs, carbs” is not a universal answer to all this. Much more science is needed.
 
chrisjohnh said:
I should stress that I am not wedded to the Taylor model of T2D causation and remedy, and I do think that team’s research and publications have questionable elements. I would only go as far as saying I think there is much there that is worthy of consideration.

I do take issue with the above comments that the Taylor model expects that maintaining remission long term requires “low calorie” diets, whatever they might be. As far as I can tell, the expectation is only that one should eat a bit less - about three quarters - of what one was eating in the lead-up to developing T2D, in other words to be just a bit more conservative, to eat just enough to fuel one’s energy needs. Take my own case. Before diagnosis I was eating at least 2500 cals daily. To achieve remission I reduced this by about half. Then, during the 18 months since then I reverted to 2000 daily - hardly “low calorie” - and my weight has never risen, nor do I expect it ever to do so. Why on earth should it? When is this bizarre weight regain meant to happen to me? In another 6 months? A year? Two years? I don’t believe it.
Click to expand...

In my correspondence with Prof Taylor, I asked him about sustained remission. Paraphrasing, obviously, but his suggestion was provided I remained trim I should be OK.
 
AndBreathe said:
In my correspondence with Prof Taylor, I asked him about sustained remission. Paraphrasing, obviously, but his suggestion was provided I remained trim I should be OK.
Click to expand...
He told me exactly the same and so did one of his co-researchers, and so did my special hero Dr David Cavan. We will each find out as time goes on. If it were not true, however, it could only mean that T2D was after all a relentlessly progressive disease despite all we have heard to the contrary from not only Taylor’s team but from wonderful doctors like Cavan, Unwin, Fung and many others. They have all encouraged us to the view that T2D arises from the way we individually store fat through our genes in combination with our dietary behaviour and that it is reversible (for many but not for all) by our behaviour and that it will stay reversed provided we indeed stay trim. Let us hope they are right. I am pretty confident, so far, that they are.

The significance of carbs in all this is still unclear, but the amount consumed and the poor quality of them does no one any favours. I suspect (don’t jump on me guys, I didn’t write “believe”) that for most of those who achieve true remission by clearing ectopic fat, carbs are not much of an issue unless taken to excess. But for others, low carbs has to be the answer to good blood glucose control, and if their A1c is thereby kept down to normoglycaemic levels then I would prefer to call that effective management, but not remission in the full sense. But that’s just my choice and others will differ. And are welcome to.
 
AS they say the proof of the pudding is in the eating so eat it and find out Diabetes does not give a hoot for cause and effect or all the discussions or arguments we have it is what it is and not open to discussion.

You can talk all you like about the relative merits of Newtonian or Einsteinian physics and the laws of gravity but when a wall falls on your head you will be injured by it hard hat or not.
 
JohnEGreen said:
AS they say the proof of the pudding is in the eating so eat it and find out Diabetes does not give a hoot for cause and effect or all the discussions or arguments we have it is what it is and not open to discussion.

You can talk all you like about the relative merits of Newtonian or Einsteinian physics and the laws of gravity but when a wall falls on your head you will be injured by it hard hat or not.
Click to expand...
Post of the thread!
 
lovinglife said:
Post of the thread!
Click to expand...
Not sure I’d agree that diabetes is not open to discussion! This thread is within a forum category bearing the title “Diabetes Discussions” after all. But I happily acknowledge that there are many who will have no interest in knowing what lies behind the way things operate, and are fully entitled to hold that position.

Though perhaps you meant that diabetes is not itself a participant in our discussions and will act in its own way independently of us, which is of course true. But the aim of understanding it is not just for oneself, but for all of us.
 
Last edited:
HSSS said:
Which contradict your hypothesis that remission (or loss of) is weight driven rather than carb led. Maybe I should be introduced to prof Taylor.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I reiterate my previous point that the ND diet plan is not just calorie restricted it is also low carb at around 75g / day. So Prof Taylor has plumped for the {weight loss is king} hypothesis, but he has not eliminated low carb as being equally instrumental. It is the elephant in the room. He has not proven his hypothesis. He has not proven that those who lost remission status did so while keeping a low fat pancreas. So his hypothesis remains unproven.

The other point to take on board is that studies into the c=peptide test have shown that the more we weigh the more insulin we need. It is a volume effect so BMI is a first approximation. so, sugars will become better controlled as weight drops away, and the control fades as weight goes back on. That is the weight side of the equation. It has nothng to do with remission and it requires a working pancreas.

Weight loss has been a staple dictat for diabetes control for decades as enshrined in the NICE guidelines of first intervention being lifestyle changes only. Taylor has re-invented the wheel in this aspect of ND.
 
Oldvatr said:
Indeed. I reiterate my previous point that the ND diet plan is not just calorie restricted it is also low carb at around 75g / day. So Prof Taylor has plumped for the {weight loss is king} hypothesis, but he has not eliminated low carb as being equally instrumental. It is the elephant in the room. He has not proven his hypothesis. He has not proven that those who lost remission status did so while keeping a low fat pancreas. So his hypothesis remains unproven.

The other point to take on board is that studies into the c=peptide test have shown that the more we weigh the more insulin we need. It is a volume effect so BMI is a first approximation. so, sugars will become better controlled as weight drops away, and the control fades as weight goes back on. That is the weight side of the equation. It has nothng to do with remission and it requires a working pancreas.

Weight loss has been a staple dictat for diabetes control for decades as enshrined in the NICE guidelines of first intervention being lifestyle changes only. Taylor has re-invented the wheel in this aspect of ND.
Click to expand...
On your first point, would you agree that the percentage achieving remission (as they defined it) increased markedly with extent of weight loss? They claimed that nearly 90% achieved it with 15kg but very few with 5kg, as I recall.
 
Oldvatr said:
Indeed. I reiterate my previous point that the ND diet plan is not just calorie restricted it is also low carb at around 75g / day. So Prof Taylor has plumped for the {weight loss is king} hypothesis, but he has not eliminated low carb as being equally instrumental. It is the elephant in the room. He has not proven his hypothesis. He has not proven that those who lost remission status did so while keeping a low fat pancreas. So his hypothesis remains unproven.

The other point to take on board is that studies into the c=peptide test have shown that the more we weigh the more insulin we need. It is a volume effect so BMI is a first approximation. so, sugars will become better controlled as weight drops away, and the control fades as weight goes back on. That is the weight side of the equation. It has nothng to do with remission and it requires a working pancreas.

Weight loss has been a staple dictat for diabetes control for decades as enshrined in the NICE guidelines of first intervention being lifestyle changes only. Taylor has re-invented the wheel in this aspect of ND.
Click to expand...
Moreover the ND diet was low fat as well, so would you argue also that he has not eliminated low fat as being instrumental?
 
What happened to the (11?) people on the original ND plan? I would be more interested to see their results as they are long term ones. Most of us posting in this thread have managed our T2 for 10 years or so and got remission through low carb, only losing it when real life kicked in...Covid, needing steroids etc etc. I tried the ND before I was diagnosed (I knew I was IR and had to do something), I did lose some weight but most of it crept back on again.
 
chrisjohnh said:
Moreover the ND diet was low fat as well, so would you argue also that he has not eliminated low fat as being instrumental?
Click to expand...
Ah, I can answer that one - low fat is not the key to weight loss. As long as carbs are restricted, fat is fine. Have a look at an old thread of mine.

My 5 day dairy fat fast

I started on Monday after lunch and then continued from Tuesday 28th July to Sat 1st August This experiment was inspired by the fat fast thread of @Baruney , @nomistheman and @Merrylizard1314 . Thank you all of you. Background. I have yoyo dieted for very many years. No diet ever worked...
www.diabetes.co.uk www.diabetes.co.uk
 
chrisjohnh said:
On your first point, would you agree that the percentage achieving remission (as they defined it) increased markedly with extent of weight loss? They claimed that nearly 90% achieved it with 15kg but very few with 5kg, as I recall.
Click to expand...
Listen. For over 10 years I have successfully controlled my type 2 diabetes only through low carbing (80g a day) and full fat but not extra fats. I have lost NO weight in this time. I can't exercise, for various reasons. My success is ONLY due to my dietary changes.I really don't know why you are having trouble accepting this that this works, for me and others, even if it doesn't work for all or for you. Have you tried low-ish carbing?

What, exactly, are you looking for? It is impolite, and impairs objective research, if someone is dismissive the lived experience of others. All real lived experience should be respected and acknowledge. I find your attitude to alternative experiences puzzling.
 
What I meant is that Diabetes it self is not an anthropomorphic entity and therefore does not conform to what we may think it should or should not be you can not argue with it we can debate as much as we like it will not change the outcome one whit I did not say that we should not discuss our theories or thoughts on it just that in the end we may just have to be fatalistic and empirical in our attitude to it and find what works for us individually by experiment and hope that those individual discoveries may have a wider application for others but understand that it may not always be the case or assume that what has worked for us in the past will always do so.

For me I have found that a quantity of foods effect on my blood sugars does not depend on it's calorific content but on it's carbohydrate content my weight however is a different matter.
 
Last edited:
lucylocket61 said:
Listen. For over 10 years I have successfully controlled my type 2 diabetes only through low carbing (80g a day) and full fat but not extra fats. I have lost NO weight in this time. I can't exercise, for various reasons. My success is ONLY due to my dietary changes.I really don't know why you are having trouble accepting this that this works, for me and others, even if it doesn't work for all or for you. Have you tried low-ish carbing?

What, exactly, are you looking for? It is impolite, and impairs objective research, if someone is dismissive the lived experience of others. All real lived experience should be respected and acknowledge. I find your attitude to alternative experiences puzzling.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand me, tho that may well be my own fault. Through all my T2D journey I have been low(ish) carb or less at 130g, and have been a strong advocate of low carb both here and in other settings. I do not, and never have and never would challenge the validity of others’ methods and experiences. My thread was an enquiry into whether, once remission has been achieved, the constraint upon carbs can be relaxed to some degree without detriment and whether others have tried that. That is all. And I take the view that any objective questioning here is admissible.
 
chrisjohnh said:
On your first point, would you agree that the percentage achieving remission (as they defined it) increased markedly with extent of weight loss? They claimed that nearly 90% achieved it with 15kg but very few with 5kg, as I recall.
Click to expand...
My point exactly. Cut the weight and the insulin you produce works better. It is not that the pancreas is outputting more, just that what is output has less work to do. Keep the weight off, and it continues to do well. Put weight on and it starts to lose efficiency. As a scientist I was taught to think in terms of Mass not weight.

It is like the Microwave oven. Pile food onto the turntable, and you need to cook for longer the more you put on. The output of the oven is not changing. So the time needs to increase.
 
Back
Top