A lot of the Taylor work is aimed squarely at establishing an approved "remission/reverse" level and method for T2 diabetes, so that, in the UK, this can be incentivised for GPs via a QOF payment linked to HbA1c reduction. If the Newcastle method were to be adopted as the NHS' method of choice (which would probably lead to other health economies picking it up) it would be extremely profitable for the owners of the Newcastle method (or any other in a similar position). This is linked to the decision a couple of years ago to define "remission" as two sub-48 HbA1c readings three months apart without glucose lowering medication. Note no mention of absence of diabetic symptoms despite that being a given for "remission" for other conditions.
The Newcastle method also conveniently does not challenge the present orthodox view on carb consumption and on weight loss, so there is no difficult discussion to be had about why, to lose weight, you were told to avoid carbohydrates (pre-1985ish) then (post-85) base all meals around carbohydrates to avoid a CVD increase that never happened thanks to the decline in smoking. I wouldn't want to be the one to explain that actually there'd been a rethink and you should cut down on those carbs again, sorry for the obesity and T2 crisis, but hey.
So you would (as a government healthcare system) be able to say that you were now rewarding doctors for using a calorie-control method that achieved remission for T2 diabetes by reducing HbA1c without drugs. That would be very attractive for government. It looks like something significant is being achieved for little cost, and no political embarrassment.
The problem is that the Newcastle method might have some short-term success but does not appear to be (on their own evidence) sustainable. They did their best to hide the 93% failure rate longterm. I'm not going to rehash the arguments in other threads on this forum where their claims of success were dismantled.
I wouldn't mind if there was a slightly more open approach to talking about what they're doing - a short-term weight-loss starter via a low-calorie approach that may also show some BG reduction. Given that an 800 calorie diet is almost certainly a low carb diet (max 160g/day assuming zero proteins or fats) even if unacknowledged, it is certainly arguable that what success is achieved is down to the low carb, rather than the low calorie. Low calorie diets for me tend to reduce metabolism and induce hunger - which has not been my experience on low carb (over four years now). And incidentally, for me and many others, BG reduction greatly precedes weight loss, not follows it, as the Newcastle approach has to claim.
I know which works for me. I also know why it's very difficult for a large health economy to change direction quickly.
