Congratulations and good luck.
-
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 »
Doing the Newcastle
- Thread starter AlcalaBob
- Start Date
Week 3 Day 18 Thursday 28th December. FBG 5.5 Weight 100.5kg
BG still good and stable in the 5s so I'm leaving the insulin at 35 units for a few more days to see if anything changes. I think I now need to wait until the weight comes down enough to stimulate recovery of the pancreas. At that point, I suspect the BG will start to come down some more and my need for the insulin will decrease again. What I'm seeing makes sense at present because the fat from the liver will have been depleted leading to a recovery in insulin sensitivity but the pancreas is not providing any secondary response yet. According to Taylor's work, that comes over a longer period of time when accompanied by substantial weight loss, so I don't expect to see any more major change for a few weeks at least. In the meantime, the weight is still inching down and I should see double figures soon, which is a kind of mini-milestone in itself. All good and positive, nothing to complain about.
It's good to see posts from others contemplating or committing to following the ND. Even just the weeks of stable normal BG on reduced medication make it worthwhile. I'm now looking forward to presenting my GP with the numbers when I've completed the ND and I hope he'll be receptive to the explanations. He'll certainly have problems explaining it based on what he has been advising and I hope it will modify what he tells patients in the future.
BG still good and stable in the 5s so I'm leaving the insulin at 35 units for a few more days to see if anything changes. I think I now need to wait until the weight comes down enough to stimulate recovery of the pancreas. At that point, I suspect the BG will start to come down some more and my need for the insulin will decrease again. What I'm seeing makes sense at present because the fat from the liver will have been depleted leading to a recovery in insulin sensitivity but the pancreas is not providing any secondary response yet. According to Taylor's work, that comes over a longer period of time when accompanied by substantial weight loss, so I don't expect to see any more major change for a few weeks at least. In the meantime, the weight is still inching down and I should see double figures soon, which is a kind of mini-milestone in itself. All good and positive, nothing to complain about.
It's good to see posts from others contemplating or committing to following the ND. Even just the weeks of stable normal BG on reduced medication make it worthwhile. I'm now looking forward to presenting my GP with the numbers when I've completed the ND and I hope he'll be receptive to the explanations. He'll certainly have problems explaining it based on what he has been advising and I hope it will modify what he tells patients in the future.
Providence 62
Well-Known Member
Thanks. I am posting my stats and info on my blog (in the blogs section) so I don't clash with yours on here.
P
Providence 62
Well-Known Member
Week 3 Day 19 Friday 29th December. FBG 4.7 Weight 100.9kg
Given that my blood is back in the 4s, I've reduced my insulin again today down to 30 units, from an original 56 units. I've noticed that after a shake my blood goes up to around 9 but then comes down within about 90 minutes to less than 6. That's the response from the liver which is clearly recovering. It's within half an hour after a brisk walk, and that used to have very little impact. Other than those short-lived peaks, there are no particular highs any more. Certainly no dawn phenomenon/liver dumping. I used to see a gradual rise throughout the late afternoon, almost certainly liver-dumping, but that doesn't happen any more either. So the blood levels have evened out during the day. It's good to see that the scales have a sense of whimsy... But overall, the average of the last five days is over a kilo lower than the average of the previous five days so the trend is very good. In a couple of days it's into week 4 and surely, surely, into double figures...
Given that my blood is back in the 4s, I've reduced my insulin again today down to 30 units, from an original 56 units. I've noticed that after a shake my blood goes up to around 9 but then comes down within about 90 minutes to less than 6. That's the response from the liver which is clearly recovering. It's within half an hour after a brisk walk, and that used to have very little impact. Other than those short-lived peaks, there are no particular highs any more. Certainly no dawn phenomenon/liver dumping. I used to see a gradual rise throughout the late afternoon, almost certainly liver-dumping, but that doesn't happen any more either. So the blood levels have evened out during the day. It's good to see that the scales have a sense of whimsy... But overall, the average of the last five days is over a kilo lower than the average of the previous five days so the trend is very good. In a couple of days it's into week 4 and surely, surely, into double figures...
Duffysmum
Active Member
Hi there,
Hopefully we can be diet buddies, I have started a blog (just as I may post and contract the verbal version of what non slow release metformin did to my OH - Sorry!!! LOL!) I would appreciate any comments or advice on what I am doing and will upload my meal planners and stats each week - mainly to keep me on track, but also so that anyone can add their advice/knowledge too! Already made the mistake of baked beans being in calorie count, but forgot the sugar/carb!!!
Best of luck!
Providence 62
Well-Known Member
I wondered that myself recently @ringi and I've tested it a couple of time with a 25 minute very hilly walk around our little town. Starting from 6-ish it went down to 5, then the shake took it up to around 9 and after 90 minutes, back down to around 5-ish. What was curious was that there didn't seem to be much difference in the order. When I've missed the walk though, it still comes down quite quickly but hangs around at near 6-ish for a couple of hours. So I think the exercise is beneficial but clearly it's not responsible for the majority of the drop. I wouldn't generalise too much from this but I think it's clear that the action of the liver is pretty important in the result. I guess if the levels are becoming more stable, the recovery period would tend to become less and the exercise would be more balanced by the controlled action of the liver. Something I'll keep an eye on.
The exercise makes a little more space in your muscles for them to take up the BG by using up some glycogen if done with a low BG, when BG is high, the muscles will just use the BG directly.
Hard exercise (weight training for example) will use up lots of glycogen regardless of BG levels, as the muscles can’t get glucose fast enough from the blood. The muscles will also then expend the size of the glycogen stores, hence becoming less insulin resistant.
But you are right that the liver is key, in a few ways.
Hard exercise (weight training for example) will use up lots of glycogen regardless of BG levels, as the muscles can’t get glucose fast enough from the blood. The muscles will also then expend the size of the glycogen stores, hence becoming less insulin resistant.
But you are right that the liver is key, in a few ways.
- Using up the glycogen in your liver due to being very low calorie (on any given day), directly and rapidly makes your live less insulin resistant.
- (The little addational glycogen your liver uses while you exercise to meatain BG will help with this.)
- Removing the fat from your liver, expends how much glycogen the liver can store, so makes the above process much more effective.
Yes @ringi, I agree that glycolysis occurs during aerobic exercise and as the glycogen store is depleted, it's possible again for the store to be replenished if the glucose can get into the muscles. But the problem is the insulin resistance. Just because the glycogen store is depleted doesn't necessarily mean that it becomes easier for the glucose to enter the muscles, nor that it be stored again as glycogen. With insulin resistance, it's hard for the glucose to be transported into muscle cells regardless of the amount of glycogen or glucose already in those tissues. Although resistance training and endurance work improves the oxidative capacity of the muscles, the problem for T2 diabetics is that glycogen synthesis in the muscles is greatly reduced. Exercise has never been enough to restore its functionality but it has always been an important part of the clinical recommendations. I'm sure we've all heard the recommendation from GPs.
Taylor has looked at the question differently by studying the triglyceride metabolism. Glycogen is one store of energy (long chains of glucose molecules) but the other major store is triglycerides (from glycerol+fatty acids) and that's what has impaired liver and pancreas function. Taylor argues that the effect of triglycerides + insulin excess + excess energy intake produces two vicious cycles, one in the liver and the other in the pancreas and that's where the insulin resistance comes from. The liver becomes insulin insensitive, and the pancreas loses beta-cell functionality and can't make enough insulin. Those two cycles reinforce each other and cause uncontrolled diabetes. In the processes identified by Taylor, glycogen doesn't play any significant role. I think that's one of the revolutionary aspects of Taylor's explanation, that it's all about the triglycerides rather than glucose-glycogen. It's quite a shift in perspective for clinicians. Given Taylor's research, I've had to revise a lot of what I used to think was the case about glucose and lipid metabolism but the evidence is, to my mind, very convincing. I haven't come across anyone with a credible challenge.
I suppose though, although the biochemistry is interesting, the bottom line is what it means for us and what we need to do. After years and years of trying exercise, low carb diets, various medications, etc, and seeing my condition gradually worsen, I think the ND is by far the most optimistic and plausible way to tackle the condition. I try to analyse it all as best I can, but regardless of the explanations, I find the evidence from actual patients the most convincing.
Taylor has looked at the question differently by studying the triglyceride metabolism. Glycogen is one store of energy (long chains of glucose molecules) but the other major store is triglycerides (from glycerol+fatty acids) and that's what has impaired liver and pancreas function. Taylor argues that the effect of triglycerides + insulin excess + excess energy intake produces two vicious cycles, one in the liver and the other in the pancreas and that's where the insulin resistance comes from. The liver becomes insulin insensitive, and the pancreas loses beta-cell functionality and can't make enough insulin. Those two cycles reinforce each other and cause uncontrolled diabetes. In the processes identified by Taylor, glycogen doesn't play any significant role. I think that's one of the revolutionary aspects of Taylor's explanation, that it's all about the triglycerides rather than glucose-glycogen. It's quite a shift in perspective for clinicians. Given Taylor's research, I've had to revise a lot of what I used to think was the case about glucose and lipid metabolism but the evidence is, to my mind, very convincing. I haven't come across anyone with a credible challenge.
I suppose though, although the biochemistry is interesting, the bottom line is what it means for us and what we need to do. After years and years of trying exercise, low carb diets, various medications, etc, and seeing my condition gradually worsen, I think the ND is by far the most optimistic and plausible way to tackle the condition. I try to analyse it all as best I can, but regardless of the explanations, I find the evidence from actual patients the most convincing.
Week 3 Day 20 Saturday 30th December. FBG 5.5 Weight 102.0 kg
The blood is still within normal range despite the insulin down to 30 units so I'll maintain it at that level. I'm getting a good recovery after the shakes and getting a decent hilly walk in each day so it's all good. The weight seems to be a bit of a yo-yo but I'm not too worried. I'm sticking to the plan and only once exceeded the 800 limit, and then only up to about 900. The coughs have gone so that should help with levels a little too. I start week 4 the day after tomorrow. All going well so far.
The blood is still within normal range despite the insulin down to 30 units so I'll maintain it at that level. I'm getting a good recovery after the shakes and getting a decent hilly walk in each day so it's all good. The weight seems to be a bit of a yo-yo but I'm not too worried. I'm sticking to the plan and only once exceeded the 800 limit, and then only up to about 900. The coughs have gone so that should help with levels a little too. I start week 4 the day after tomorrow. All going well so far.
Hi @contralto,
Yes, I've read Jason Fung's stuff, his Obesity Code and a number of his blog articles. There's quite a difference between Fung and Taylor's approach and I've found Fung to be too conversational, using metaphors to try to explain insulin resistance, and not scientific enough in his explanations. But to be fair, presenting for the public imposes some restrictions. For example, he talks about insulin being 'full of glucose' and talks about the 'train' of insulin delivering the 'load' of glucose to the muscles. Biochemically, we know that's not the case at all. Insulin is quite a small molecule (it's a small polypeptide protein made up of 51 amino acids), does not bind to glucose and is not itself the agent that transports glucose into muscles. It's a hormone which activates various proteins in the muscle cell walls, that themselves can flip across the cell membrane enabling glucose transport. Fung is certainly well aware of this but his informal presentation leads one to misunderstand what insulin actually is. It encourages people to see insulin as a carrier. Having said that, his analysis on fasting fits perfectly with the detailed biochemical analysis from Taylor. So whilst he's clearly onto something with the fasting, his scientific presentation leaves me questioning some of the things he says. I don't think he has provided a sufficient explanation of how storage and energy use are related and I think that's because he sees it in terms of glucose. The two cycle hypothesis of Taylor is much more comprehensively explanatory. I think following Fung's recommendation will most likely produce the same results in many cases as Taylor's and Taylor is still researching insulin resistance. Does Fung have an adequate explanation? I'm not yet convinced. Some comparative trials of both would be interesting especially if they were focused on lipid metabolism.
Duffysmum
Active Member
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/blog/duffysmum.309958/
i think this is it ..please let me have yours...
its all because of @AlcalaBob!
Providence 62
Well-Known Member
Thank you @AlcalaBob !
Providence 62
Well-Known Member
Finding the meal replacement drinks a bit sicky-sweet. Don't have a sweet tooth. Thinking of clear soup such as knorr Chicken Noodle, French Onion, Minestrone. Suggestions?
Week 3 Day 21 Sunday 31st December. FBG 6.0 Weight 102.0kg
Blood seems a little raised this morning and I've kept the insulin at 30 units for the third day. Yesterday my levels were around 6 all day except for immediately after the shakes. Perhaps this morning is a reflection of the lower insulin level but I'll keep an eye on it. If the FBG doesn't edge back down soon, I might push the insulin back up a little. It's a tricky decision for me because excess insulin is one of the drivers of insulin resistance and the diet depleting the liver of fat is what brings about renewed insulin sensitivity. So the insulin is, in a sense, working against the recovery process of the liver. So increasing the insulin again might help keep the level stable but perhaps then inhibits the liver from readjusting. I'd rather keep the insulin low at least for a few more days to see what happens because I really don't want to risk the good control. I'm already psychologically feeling as though increasing medication is going backwards. It's ironic - I used to think increasing medication led to better control of a degenerating condition. I now have a different perspective on what can happen which includes good permanent control with no or minimal medication.
Week 4 starts tomorrow.
Blood seems a little raised this morning and I've kept the insulin at 30 units for the third day. Yesterday my levels were around 6 all day except for immediately after the shakes. Perhaps this morning is a reflection of the lower insulin level but I'll keep an eye on it. If the FBG doesn't edge back down soon, I might push the insulin back up a little. It's a tricky decision for me because excess insulin is one of the drivers of insulin resistance and the diet depleting the liver of fat is what brings about renewed insulin sensitivity. So the insulin is, in a sense, working against the recovery process of the liver. So increasing the insulin again might help keep the level stable but perhaps then inhibits the liver from readjusting. I'd rather keep the insulin low at least for a few more days to see what happens because I really don't want to risk the good control. I'm already psychologically feeling as though increasing medication is going backwards. It's ironic - I used to think increasing medication led to better control of a degenerating condition. I now have a different perspective on what can happen which includes good permanent control with no or minimal medication.
Week 4 starts tomorrow.
I have read quite a bit of Prof Taylors stuff including the twin cycle hypothesis. Dr Fung apparently concurs with Prof Taylors finding on removing the 1g of fat from the pancreas (I'm looking forward to seeing the DIRECT study results on correlation between the pancreatic fat and successful remission (is that part out yet ?)). Do you know if Dr Fung has done any controlled trials on his fasting theory ? (I know there is plenty of anecdotal evidence but I'm always interested in the science)
By the way very well done on sticking with the ND.
Hi @Begonia,
I'm not aware of any original research by Fung but he does reference his work very extensively. Maybe others have come across original scientific material but I've only seen the popular blog material which does contain some data, just not peer-reviewed and published in journals. But I have a number of problems with some of the things Fung says. For example, in the Obesity Code book he actually says (...quick pause to check...) that excess protein is stored in the body. In fact, that's completely untrue. Excess protein isn't simply stored as protein. The body cannot store protein. It first gets broken down into amino acids which are then metabolised. So although he's carefully examined the research of others, and he has a wealth of clinical experience, some of his generalisations are questionable, to my mind. I think his emphasis on glucose metabolism provides less convincing explanation than Taylor's Twin Cycle Hypothesis, and Taylor did measure the lipid changes in liver and pancreas, a level of biochemical study which has previously been missing from the literature. I think Taylor's work can completely explain Fung's results but not necessarily vice versa which speaks to the adequacy of the theories. I'm going to read Fung's obesity book again because it might read differently in the context of Taylor's work and I'm sure to have missed stuff the first time. It's never a bad idea for me to question my own thinking.
By the way, the results of the DIRECT trial were made available on 5th December:
http://www.directclinicaltrial.org.uk
I'm not aware of any original research by Fung but he does reference his work very extensively. Maybe others have come across original scientific material but I've only seen the popular blog material which does contain some data, just not peer-reviewed and published in journals. But I have a number of problems with some of the things Fung says. For example, in the Obesity Code book he actually says (...quick pause to check...) that excess protein is stored in the body. In fact, that's completely untrue. Excess protein isn't simply stored as protein. The body cannot store protein. It first gets broken down into amino acids which are then metabolised. So although he's carefully examined the research of others, and he has a wealth of clinical experience, some of his generalisations are questionable, to my mind. I think his emphasis on glucose metabolism provides less convincing explanation than Taylor's Twin Cycle Hypothesis, and Taylor did measure the lipid changes in liver and pancreas, a level of biochemical study which has previously been missing from the literature. I think Taylor's work can completely explain Fung's results but not necessarily vice versa which speaks to the adequacy of the theories. I'm going to read Fung's obesity book again because it might read differently in the context of Taylor's work and I'm sure to have missed stuff the first time. It's never a bad idea for me to question my own thinking.
By the way, the results of the DIRECT trial were made available on 5th December:
http://www.directclinicaltrial.org.uk
