I tend to think of being well controlled rather than ‘in remission’ or ‘reversed’. There is no doubt in my mind that returning to old ways of eating, or even to a more restrained consumption of high carb foods would quickly undo all the progress made over the past 15 months or so as developing type 2 diabetes in the first place indicates an intolerance of carbs.
For me focusing on remission or reversal could create a mindset which regards carbs as some kind of holy grail. For me the low carb way of life brings so many other health benefits - as well as being highly enjoyable - and is therefore very sustainable.
I reversed it using the Newcastle diet 4 years ago. I had to take 2 months off work.Thanks rachox. Im just wondering if there is a thread showing tbose who had actually reversed it like my sister
The Bible is stuffed full of cures and Miracles, DESMOND is notI think you will find more facts in the bible than you would in the Desmond handbook.
This is the crux of the problem as you have just stated the book they were using was years old, their so called Bible., that bible may need to be updated, but instead they are following and recommendation that may be absolutely incorrect?I wasn't expecting to get much out of my DESMOND course but i actually learned quite a bit and enjoyed it. But one thing that was said was that T2D can't EVER be reversed. They went further than that by saying the media had mistaken remission for reversal. I gave an example of my sister who following a gastric bypass operation REVERSED her T2D. She can basically eat what she wants. Non diabetic results. So it's made me wonder of the people on here that have 'reversed' their T2D are they in remission or actually completely reversed? I wasn't going to argue in the DESMOND course! There were a few things I didn't agree with. Another one being the discussion on fats and which are good and bad for you. They certainly don't advocate LCHF!!! The 3 ladies running the course were non diabetic. The book they were using was years old (they called it their bible and said it was only based on facts).
So the bible is superior in every way to the Desmond handbook more facts and complete with miracles and cures thanks Oldvatr I hadn't even considered that.The Bible is stuffed full of cures and Miracles, DESMOND is not
That information has helped me understand a lot. Thanks for sharing.I reversed it using the Newcastle diet 4 years ago. I had to take 2 months off work.
I lost 4.5 stone, down to 11.5 stone. I tested my ability to produce insulin by drinking 8 pints of Stella(strong lager) on a night out. On my way home I was starving due to over production of insulin and my instantaneous blood glucose reading was 3.8. I could eat Mars bars, fizzy drinks without high sugar levels.
This was true for the next 9 months until I gained weight, back to 15 stone, then I went ‘roughly’ back to being diabetic. The Newcastle diet indicates that they believe there is a threshold weight when you start becoming diabetic again.
The diet supposedly removes fat from your pancreas and enables the pancreas to function correctly. Regaining weight replaces the fat and you’re diabetic again. I think there is s massive difference between being cured and remission.
I was temporarily producing insulin properly but weight gain caused the return of diabetes.
Btw I eat and drink whatever I want and haven’t gone back to the typical blood glucose readings I had prior to the Newcastle diet.
In fact my hba1c has been below the upper limit of 52 ever since 2014 even with the weight gain, although my instantaneous readings will reach double figures (I reached 33 prior to the diet and my hba1c was 117). Hope this helps.
Regards Paul
Hello Guzzler - you obviously know NOTHING about the Bible. The Bible is between 4,000 years old and 1900 years old. The oldest book of the Bible is called JOB and wasw written about the time of Abraham which was about 2,000 BC. THe youngest book of the Bible is called the Book of Revelation and was written about 95 AD (just over 1900 years ago).The bible is 2000 years old and hardly based on fact. Nuff said.
The Bible is stuffed full of cures and Miracles, DESMOND is not
Hello Guzzler - you obviously know NOTHING about the Bible. The Bible is between 4,000 years old and 1900 years old. The oldest book of the Bible is called JOB and wasw written about the time of Abraham which was about 2,000 BC. THe youngest book of the Bible is called the Book of Revelation and was written about 95 AD (just over 1900 years ago).
The Bible was written by over 40 pen men over a period of 2,000 years who were living over 1,000 miles apart - yet there is no disagreement between them in what they have written.
No part of the Bible has ever been proved to be wrong - yet even today we are seeing prophecies being fulfilled. Try reading the King James Authorised Version translation and you will see what I mean.
Because the Bible is so ACCURATE many professional who TRUST their "text book" refer to it as their "Bible".
Happy reading.
Kyambala
I refuse to have an argument about the veracity of the bible or about religion in general.
Enjoy the rest of your evening.
I was just getting interested, I wanted to hear more about the accuracy claim.Couldn’t agree more. I’m so tired of hearing about the Bible and everything associated with it.
Oh dear when I said there are more facts in the Bible than the Desmond handbook I was alluding to historical and verifiable facts nothing more, and that was tongue in cheek please lighten up a bit.
are you serious or having a laughHello Guzzler - you obviously know NOTHING about the Bible. The Bible is between 4,000 years old and 1900 years old. The oldest book of the Bible is called JOB and wasw written about the time of Abraham which was about 2,000 BC. THe youngest book of the Bible is called the Book of Revelation and was written about 95 AD (just over 1900 years ago).
The Bible was written by over 40 pen men over a period of 2,000 years who were living over 1,000 miles apart - yet there is no disagreement between them in what they have written.
No part of the Bible has ever been proved to be wrong - yet even today we are seeing prophecies being fulfilled. Try reading the King James Authorised Version translation and you will see what I mean.
Because the Bible is so ACCURATE many professional who TRUST their "text book" refer to it as their "Bible".
Happy reading.
Kyambala
serious...are you serious or having a laugh
serious...
Hello Guzzler - you obviously know NOTHING about the Bible. The Bible is between 4,000 years old and 1900 years old. The oldest book of the Bible is called JOB and wasw written about the time of Abraham which was about 2,000 BC. THe youngest book of the Bible is called the Book of Revelation and was written about 95 AD (just over 1900 years ago).
The Bible was written by over 40 pen men over a period of 2,000 years who were living over 1,000 miles apart - yet there is no disagreement between them in what they have written.
No part of the Bible has ever been proved to be wrong - yet even today we are seeing prophecies being fulfilled. Try reading the King James Authorised Version translation and you will see what I mean.
Because the Bible is so ACCURATE many professional who TRUST their "text book" refer to it as their "Bible".
Happy reading.
Kyambala
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?