I cured my diabetes so anybody can

EdMac said:

There are people who have exhibited diabetic responses for years, who then go on to follow specific diets, such as the Newcastle Diet, lose lots of weight and lose their diabetic response. I have met people who had much worse blood readings than me who followed the newcastle diet, or a close derivative, lost a few stone and completely lost their diabetic response.

One person in particular I know did this 3 years ago and now has what would be a terrible (for a diabetic) diet. She is still not exhibiting a diabetic response. At some stage in future she probably will as she continues to regain weight. But that does not negate the fact she reversed her diabetes and recovered normal function.

Click to expand...

Interesting.... so she doesn't react to everything else either? Most diabetics react to more than what they eat. How many times does she test herself in a day? I'm assuming you're saying that these people have completely normal hbA1c also? I've never heard of this myself as it hasn't been my experience. I haven't really come across people like this online either other than what I'm reading on this forum. I guess some are just very fortunate to have bodies that function this way. Then I guess there could be something different to their diagnosis maybe... perhaps some hormone isn't the same or something and it is some type of variant they had. I'm just wondering here. Just strange that most diabetics always have diabetic responses no matter how they got diabetes and how the manage it.

EdMac said:

I slipped on ice and fractured my wrist in two places. I was told by a doctor and three people who had each sustained a single fracture to a wrist, that I would never recover full function. Of course I didn't believe them and with diligent application of appropriate exercises (that I wasn't told about at the hospital but had to find out about for myself) I did recover full function. Not only that I didn't turn up for my cast appointment and returned to the hospital 9 days later to demonstrate that my wrist had already healed sufficiently to continue with a brace not a cast. You see we can aim higher than accepting the fate other people before us have accepted.

Click to expand...

@Pipp has herself worked hard to fight physical conditions which limit her movement. She is one of the people I admire most on this forum.

EdMac said:

There are people who have exhibited diabetic responses for years, who then go on to follow specific diets, such as the Newcastle Diet, lose lots of weight and lose their diabetic response. I have met people who had much worse blood readings than me who followed the newcastle diet, or a close derivative, lost a few stone and completely lost their diabetic response.

One person in particular I know did this 3 years ago and now has what would be a terrible (for a diabetic) diet. She is still not exhibiting a diabetic response. At some stage in future she probably will as she continues to regain weight. But that does not negate the fact she reversed her diabetes and recovered normal function.

Click to expand...

That fits with my theory that the people who get 'cured' are those who have the worst diet to start with. In other words they became diabetic through negligence and are lucky to be able to change their ways and improve matters. Those of us who were fighting to lose weight for 25 years before diagnosis and ate relatively healthily already are less likely to find that cure. I suppose that's why I dislike threads about 'cures', those who have worked hardest on their diets throughout their lives are less likely to be cured.

zand said:

That fits with my theory that the people who get 'cured' are those who have the worst diet to start with. In other words they became diabetic through negligence and are lucky to be able to change their ways and improve matters. Those of us who were fighting to lose weight for 25 years before diagnosis and ate relatively healthily already are less likely to find that cure. I suppose that's why I dislike threads about 'cures', those who have worked hardest on their diets throughout their lives are less likely to be cured.

Click to expand...

although most people that totally change their diet, keep to their new diet. Edmac is saying people then start eating badly again and they don't get a diabetic response. That's what I find odd. How can you be diabetic if you don't get a response? I'd question the diagnosis to begin with. As mentioned above it could be some variant with hormones or something. Most diabetics would get a diabetic response if they ate the wrong thing, or they suddenly were stressed for whatever reason. I know I can be sitting on 6 in the past and get a phone call that stresses me out and I'm suddenly sitting on 14.... no food involved there. So all these people must have some amazing healing capacity... something has really changed to allow them to eat whatever they want and not get any reaction in their sugar levels to stress, etc.

EdMac said:

Except me? I have to come with proof and references to support my opinions otherwise they add nothing to the thread? My observations and subjective interpretations and evaluations of those observations must be backed by scientific study. Whereas you - you're allowed to just have an opinion.

The bottom line is I have not "promoted a theory" I've offered my interpretation of data that has been heavily discussed on this forum and elsewhere for years. I've met people 'in the real world' who have followed the diets promoted by those studies and have ceased having a diabetic response. I have read about other people who have ceased having diabetic responses. My understanding is there are numerous people on this very forum who, whichever word they choose to describe their circumstances, have ceased having a diabetic response.

So whilst reversal may not be an option for you have you considered that there are people who would like to explore this as a first option. You know those people who can be bothered to endure "the misery of a VLC diet" because they'd take healthy over sick every day of the week EVEN if it meant a little bit of effort.

So by all means have your opinion but stop being so bloody demanding when it comes to the opinions of people who happen to disagree with you.

Click to expand...

You proposed a theory, I requested evidence of the scientific foundation of your theory (goodness, that was pages back, and you are still in a tail spin about it).

I think I have had similar conversations with at least three people on this forum and others, within the last week. In all other cases, those posters have very kindly, and reasonably offered their references and links. (thanks @AloeSvea for those interesting links on beta cell regeneration ) Which I have then read up on. Some of which made sense to me, and have entered my melting pot of information. Some I consider to be in too early stages of research to get excited about (small trials, on rats and mice, with implications that are probably 10-20 years away from benefiting us diabetics) but all were interesting to read.

What you seem to be missing is that I don't actually object to the idea of reversal. I would love it. Everyone would love it. It is a wonderful goal. But there is a fine line between offering hope and false hope, and you don't seem to distinguish between the two. And we need to be very precise with our terminology to avoid disappointment.

I am all for people saying 'I have reversed my T2D provided I eat in a particular way. This is what worked for me...'

I am not in favour of people saying 'cure/reversal is dependent on a normal HbA1c a few months after a very low calorie diet, while eating in a way that will require severe discipline for the next 40 years. That isn't reversal. That is control. And may or may not be sustainable.

All I am asking is that you provide evidence of your theories. Good, sensible evidence.

A perfect example would be a well run study (such as Professor Taylor's ND study) showing that for a certain % of people, reversal works following a particular regime like the meal replacement shakes, long term. Say 5+ years. Preferably 10 years, since 5 doesn't seem long term to me nowadays. And the older I get the shorter it seems!

Obviously Prof Taylor is trying to do this, and has published some preliminary results of his latest longer term study. It looks promising. Last figs I saw there were about 43% 'reversed' (his chosen terminology) at 6 months. But that is still short term. We need longer, more comprehensive studies using real food, with rigorous follow ups, before people start making strong claims. Prof. Taylor is very circumspect in his language of achievement!

Provide me with evidence like that, and I will be happy. In fact, I will be jubilant, because I would love to see such good news. I am following Taylor's work, and I am following Fung, and the various low carb options and info as it appears. If you have more, better info on which you base your theory, them please, I am interested. I am always interested. But what I am NOT interested in is someone's unsubstantiated pet theory.

zand said:

@Pipp has herself worked hard to fight physical conditions which limit her movement. She is one of the people I admire most on this forum.

Click to expand...

the wife was told she would never be able to walk without sticks, if she could walk on the leg at all, after smashing her leg .. Well she can walk ok .. and without sticks .. yes it gets painful and due to the metal she will have limited movement in her ankle .. but she ignored the hospital advice and got it moving again. Not everyone can achieve the impossible .. but they should not be stopped from trying. if it was me , I would have listened to the Dr and never even tried to walk !!!!!

Brunneria said:

You proposed a theory

Click to expand...

As I have stated quite clearly I did not propose a theory I offered an interpretation of data I have read and been given in conversation. And I have absolutely no interest in 'proving' theories to anyone. Our 'conversation' is now finished.

Mep said:

How can you be diabetic if you don't get a response?

Click to expand...

You can't. Since 'Diabetic' is a description of the response. Take away the response and it's not a fitting description.

Edit by Mod to remove personal attack

zand said:

they became diabetic through negligence

Click to expand...

That's definitely me. I used to train at a level that would be considered 'elite club level' (according to the times I used to run). But because I was burning lots of calories I ate what I wanted. Then when I stopped training because of injury I didn't cut out the crisps, sweets and biscuits and I piled on 4 stone. Then one day woke up with a very sore face and had some blood tests.

andcol said:

When they understand the differnet causes of T2 we will end up with subclasses I am sure. Just look at the MODY work that is finding new genes all the time.

Click to expand...

I recently attended a talk by my very own D consultant and he spoke of the very thing happening.
He said in the next 5 years we will begin to see type 2 sub classified into as many as 50 designations, with drugs tailored to the individual.It is really encouraging

EdMac said:

You can't. Since 'Diabetic' is a description of the response. Take away the response and it's not a fitting description.

Click to expand...

Semantics and does not describe the actuality Diabetes is a disease with its own pathology and aetiology not merely a set of physiological responses to a particular stimulus.

I too have been thinking along the lines of Type 2 diabetes being a collection of sub types, as experiences and results seem so varied. Good to know i am along the right lines.

EdMac said:

That's definitely me. I used to train at a level that would be considered 'elite club level' (according to the times I used to run). But because I was burning lots of calories I ate what I wanted. Then when I stopped training because of injury I didn't cut out the crisps, sweets and biscuits and I piled on 4 stone. Then one day woke up with a very sore face and had some blood tests.

Click to expand...

Probably the majority of diabetics, if statistics are to be believed. Certainly I followed the same path, and at the risk of incurring the wrath of a certain poster, I think Zand's theory makes sense. Which is turn suggests for the majority, a VLCD would be the first step.

EdMac said:

You can't. Since 'Diabetic' is a description of the response. Take away the response and it's not a fitting description.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is sufficient to explain how someone who was diagnosed with diabetes could suddenly not get a diabetic response from changing their diet or losing weight. I'm still wondering how these people respond to all the other factors diabetics usually have a diabetic response to such as anything that causes stress.... are you suggesting that has been fixed too? Or are you just referring to their diabetic response in reference to food? This must be a sub type of type 2 that not many people have if that is the case that they can suddenly not have a diabetic response after having had them. I've been diabetic for a while now and I've always had diabetic responses to a lot of things no matter what diet I was on or treatment.

Pipp said:

Blimey, must be bad if you envy me! No issues , @Brunneria, just wanted to clarify that fasting does not equal 'misery' for everyone. Nor is it the answer for everyone.

Like many I have had to compromise, and build my own individual way of coping with T2 alongside other co-morbidities.
Immediately following my first fasting period following Newcastle diet method, I knew I had achieved some sort of success, but was floundering about what to do next. I will always be grateful to the esteemed members here (too numerous to mention) who have helped me find a way of maintaining, so far, the early success with blood glucose management. The compromise has been that unlike many I have not been able to fully maintain the massive weightloss by eating high fat foods in more than minimal amounts. I actually envy those who can, because the high fat foods are much more flavoursome. I would love to be able to use 'fat fasting' as a method of control. Tried it, made me quite ill, but that would not make me think it would be misery for others. Fantastic if anyone finds something that works for them. So, I have to have periods of eating the LCHF way, then when I gain more weight than I would like have a period of fasting. The main compromise is that I have had to choose a way of maintaining non-diabetic blood results, at the expense of giving up trying to be an acceptable (to HCPs) weight. They mind me being fat much more than I do.

Something else has occurred to me though. Many of us disagree with the recommended NHS diet. I do wonder if the recommended calorie intake is not a one size fits all. I know I do better on less than recommended. But that could be just me.

Click to expand...

There isn't a one size fits all.

'Within a healthy, balanced diet, a man needs around 10,500kJ (2,500Kcal) a day to maintain his weight. For a woman, that figure is around 8,400kJ (2,000Kcal) a day.
These values can vary depending on age, metabolism and levels of physical activity, among other things.'
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/1126.aspx?categoryid=51

I certainly don't eat 2500 calories every day.

JohnEGreen said:

Semantics and does not describe the actuality Diabetes is a disease with its own pathology and aetiology not merely a set of physiological responses to a particular stimulus.

Click to expand...

Actually this is a misleading statement. When you take a blood sample and run tests on it there is no detector that identifies a component of that blood sample called 'Diabetes'. There is no diabetes as a thing. Diabetes is a label. So it's interesting that you write off my comment as just semantics.

If we look a little closer at language, as a tool for describing sensory based experiences that occur in the real world, we may see what is happening here:

A Description: "my eyelids are heavy and my breathing is becoming deeper"
An Interpretation: "I'm tired"
An Evaluation: "I didn't get enough sleep last night"

The more we are removed from the sensory based data the words are employed to describe - the more we have reason to doubt. Words can do a wonderful job but they can also do a very bad job - especially when people accept the words in place of the experience.

So when the healthcare practitioner says "I am 100% certain you are diabetic" (word for word what was said to me). What does she actually mean?

What sensory based data is the evaluation "Diabetic" linked to?

EdMac said:

So when the healthcare practitioner says "I am 100% certain you are diabetic" (word for word what was said to me). What does she actually mean?

Click to expand...

I'd say it means your sugar is not in normal range.

A non diabetic would have sugar in the normal range and would not have an impaired glucose tolerance result (OGTT). Here they do not make the diagnosis that you have diabetes without running the hbA1c test, GAD test, and c-peptide test. From the results of these tests they determine whether or not you have impaired glucose. If not normal, then do you have an auto-immune response as well?, and what is the state of your insulin production? This determines the type of diabetes you have.

If you are saying a doctor can say you're not diabetic suddenly, then they're only looking at the hbA1c result which covers the past 60 days. Now I think I read somewhere here about docs there using the 6 month normal hbA1c rule? If that is the case that is only about 3 hbA1c's and anyone can get a good BGL results in that period. Whether or not you stay there in normal range is another matter. I wouldn't think that would class you as non diabetic in itself. I would think you'd need a longer period and proof you can do whatever you want and pass a OGTT no problem.

So in answer to your question I don't think a doctor could technically say you're non diabetic either once they establish you have impaired glucose tolerance and higher than normal range for sugar. A non diabetic doesn't have high sugar as their insulin is used correctly.

Pipp said:

Sorty, I should have said one recommended amount for women. 2000 cals would be way too much for me, and as a larger woman dieticians have recommended even higher calorie intake. When following their advice, which recently has been 1800 cals a day I gain weight. Have been experimenting with that recently just to see their response. I anticipate the response will be that I am not being truthful about my diet. I guess they regard me a a big fat liar.

Click to expand...

Yep I've been regarded as a BFL too. It makes me so very angry. I know that I don't cheat. I know that I write down everything I eat when I'm doing a food diary. Aaaarrrggghhhh how dare they?

Pipp said:

Sorty, I should have said one recommended amount for women. 2000 cals would be way too much for me, and as a larger woman dieticians have recommended even higher calorie intake. When following their advice, which recently has been 1800 cals a day I gain weight. Have been experimenting with that recently just to see their response. I anticipate the response will be that I am not being truthful about my diet. I guess they regard me a a big fat liar.

Click to expand...

You're right, many on here don't eat that many calories, regardless of diet type, when they actually work it out.
Most of us follow what would be classed as a low calorie diet compared to recommended intake.
I budget for an average of 2000 calories, to maintain weight, but I am fairly average, possibly a bit more sedentary recently, but no means a couch potato.
But I suppose that's age. I probably ate 3000 calories with no problems in my youth, it's when I still ate that much in my middle age problems started.