Forgive me but I'm losing track of what point you are making. I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with something I've said but if so, I don't know what it is and I haven't understood the reasons. I've done a fair amount of homework on Taylor's work, his previous papers, the biochemistry involved, how it relates to lipid metabolism, etc, so I'm reasonably up to speed with the science. Some of his studies involved an hypothesis that he set out to disprove, as with all good investigative science. Other trials involving comparisons of efficacy or acceptability had different criteria. I'm up to speed on the design of trials. He's been working on this for many years and the recent release of data has finally put it in the limelight. His current advice to GPs and those wanting to undertake the diet is pretty clear and unambiguous so I'm very happy following it. His scientific explanations I find very convincing so for me, it's all good.You are thinking about the original very small scale study Taylor did to track how fat was removed from the liver etc. This study did not aim to reverse diabetes; they did not even do blood tests on the people after the 8 weeks. In this first study the people were spending at least one day a weak in Taylor’s lab having his special MRI scans and insulin response tests etc.
Then news of Taylor’s work spread and he got emails from all round the world written by people with Type2 who wished to use his diet…….
The study that has just been published was much larger scale looking at the NC “in real life” and they are going to see how long the results last by keeping track of the people for at least 3 years. He is now trying to prove what savings (if any) offering the ND at part of the NHS GP service would give the NHS.
(The shakes were just used in the original study as it allowed him to control the rate of fat lose and he was given them for free!)
I'm very positive about it. The way I see it is that even reducing the blood sugar for the duration of the diet is an enormous benefit, eight weeks of near normal values instead of accumulating secondary complications. Continuing it after that will be starting to reverse the effects of neuropathy, kidney problems, etc. It's something to be very positive about. So I'm turning that recognition into positive commitment.Very interested in your progress, @AlcalaBob, and so pleased for you. Am going to be following along, and really hope it works out just the way you want.
Yesterday, after a shake, my level hit 11 but then came down again within 90 minutes which indicates a good response. That's a big change from five or six days ago when a rise would have persisted for some time.
The non-existent weight loss is starting to be a bit disappointing. I'm strictly controlling the calories and yet I'm still hovering around 102kg. I'm as active as usual, out walking each day, but with massively reduced calorie intake so logically I should see some weight loss.
Yes, the blood sugar is certainly the very positive evidence that my liver is recovering functionality and that only comes from losing the fat deposited there. Putting my biochemical hat on, I can see various possible explanations for what I'm seeing. I could be losing fat at the same time as retaining fluid after an initial fluid loss so the composition of my weight is changing, losing fat but not seeing the scales change. Or there could actually be a desposition of fat continuing because of the effects of the insulin. If this was enough to compensate for the fat loss, the liver would still show signs of improvement but the adipose tissue wouldn't yet thin out. Lipid metabolism is never a straight in-out process but over time, with a thinned down properly functioning liver, a net energy deficit will necessarily reduce adipose deposits. If the liver is not properly thinned down, that energy equation gets skewed, hence all the counter-intuitive results from historic trials about obesity and dieting. My money is on fluid retention and the presence of insulin.This shows you are losing fat from your liver.
The shakes contain enough protein to enable an increase in muscle hence you may be converting fat into muscle.
The issue is that "weight loss" is of no importance what we care about is the fat in our organs, but we don't have a way to measure the fat content of our liver etc. Hence everyone talks about "weight loss" as the two often goes together.
Yes, I think that's what I said so we're in agreement. Clearly weight loss unrelated to lipid metabolism is not what we're about. I doubt that anyone on this site contemplates such weight loss as it clearly conflicts with the aims of the ND.I think the issue is that the weight loss is needed to get below the personal fat threshold, but if you just had a doctor cut you open and remove fat from under your skin to reduce weight, it would not work. So the weight loss is a means to an end, not an end itself.
Just keep going as you are now and you will get there.
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?