• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

I'd like to see starvation diets having a place in NHS support for obese type2s.

ickihun

ickihun

Master
Messages
13,696
Location
Sunderland
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Insulin
Dislikes
Bullies
I would like starvation diets a place in NHS care, for obese Type2s.

(I'm hiding under my pillow for my response) ha ha
 
I suspect you may need to keep hiding under that pillow! I wouldn't use the term starvation but it would help for everyone to understand foods more. The fact that carbs are the biggest contributor to obesity is not known to many and that fats and proteins help delay hunger pangs. Overall food intake obviously needs to be sensible and exercise always helps. The NHS of course due to PHE guidance etc is the cause of some of the problem due to it's stupid Low sugar/fat/salt advice. Sadly as average BMI increases the reference people see around them becomes the norm rather than being in a 'good' BMI range. In summary let's see more good dietary guidance but the NHS will be the last body to offer that due to food industry influence behind the scenes via PHE and BDA.
 
Good luck with that one.

They ask that we fast for certain tests and tell us that fasting is dangerous. They ask us to lose weight then tell us to follow a diet that can in some cases promote weight gain.

Dr. Jason Fung made a sarcastic remark to Ivor Cummins on one short video, he said 'Because we all have to eat every three hours, right? Otherwise we die, right?' The only people who must eat every three hours are small infants, everyone else can fast safely given that they are not peg fed or have other medical needs which may affect the alimentary canal.

Starvation leads to death. A 'Starvation Diet' is in my opinion an oxymoron.
 
ickihun said:
I would like starvation diets a place in NHS care, for obese Type2s.
Click to expand...
Why what is your rational for this I would understand better if you where to expand on your initial statement.

By the way I have seen it done in a military hospital under medical supervision but I don't think it was very successful in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Guzzler said:
There is a big difference between a very low calorie diet and a so called starvation diet.
Click to expand...

This is where I think @ickihun needs to define the terms. So many people call 800 calories a day "starvation" that I presumed that was what she meant, especially since those kinds of calories are often mentioned when it comes to treating obesity and Type 2.
 
Fasting is the easy part, learning how to refeed in order to retain all the benefits of tearing down the old, and regenerating the new...that is where the challenge lies...
 
AdamJames said:
There's what appears to be a balanced, non-hysterical, non-religious view of VLCDs from the NHS here:

https://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/very-low-calorie-diets.aspx

The fact is weight loss, and maintenance in the long terms is extremely hard no matter how it's done, and VLCDs have a place.
Click to expand...
I would disagree to some extent. Very low CALORIE diets are not the way to go as they misunderstand how the body's metabolism works. It would be better if the word 'calorie' was restricted to lab research rather than being (mis)-used in marketing. Fats have twice the calorific value of carbs hence in low CALORIE diets they tend to be reduced which is counter-productive as fats slow digestion and are not the main cause of weight gain. Low CARB diets make more sense which is why many on this forum have them. Having a Low carb diet for many of us is not that difficult and once started and continued it is possible to adopt it as life-style and not a 'diet'
 
here is one that has done the keto diet with excellence :
<iframe width="854" height="480" src="
" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Daibell said:
I would disagree to some extent. Very low CALORIE diets are not the way to go as they misunderstand how the body's metabolism works. It would be better if the word 'calorie' was restricted to lab research rather than being (mis)-used in marketing. Fats have twice the calorific value of carbs hence in low CALORIE diets they tend to be reduced which is counter-productive as fats slow digestion and are not the main cause of weight gain. Low CARB diets make more sense which is why many on this forum have them. Having a Low carb diet for many of us is not that difficult and once started and continued it is possible to adopt it as life-style and not a 'diet'
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which bit you're disagreeing with, but to focus on where we agree, I'd certainly say that a low carb, high fat diet is the best way to go in most cases. Mainly for the reason you say - it's not a temporary diet - it's a permanent one which ideally takes no thought or restriction once somebody is used to it, and seems to automatically result in natural calorie restriction for a lot of people. And also in the case of people with T2 it makes even more sense, as even if they never manage to improve their glucose tolerance, it doesn't really matter, as they don't need great glucose tolerance on a LCHF diet. It has to be the best game in town for that.

I think the point I was making about weight loss and maintenance being hard is still valid however, regardless of the type of diet used. How many people here have spent many years being very obese, then switched to a LCHF diet in which they genuinely eat all they want, and have never experienced weight loss slow-downs or stalls at a point where they still have a lot of body fat. Again, it's not necessarily important if someone is overweight but they have a great diet and great blood glucose control - but most science says that visceral fat is a very bad thing in any case, and I think that to get rid of that, and keep it off, is a very hard battle indeed from all the reading around I've done - and certainly in my own experience.
 
One interesting thing in favour of VLCDs for obese people with T2 is that there is good evidence that for some people quite a remarkable change can occur when visceral fat is lost - notably that pancreatic fat is also lost and this can quite literally restore glucose tolerance. But there seems to be a definite time limit for this. So speed may be of the essence.

Separate studies have also suggested that rapid weight loss can lead to lower insulin resistance and better glucose control, which may be independent of anything that has happened to the pancreas.

So broadly I'd agree LCHF seems to be the best approach for the long-game, but there are many angles to consider.
 
AdamJames said:
it's not a temporary diet - it's a permanent one which ideally takes no thought or restriction once somebody is used to it,
Click to expand...
I've been LCHF for 8 months now, and it still takes a lot of thought, and I still have low moments often in the supermarket when I see something that I used to eat and really enjoy. How long does it take for it to take no thought or restriction? I'm not sure I will ever reach that point :(
 
Having been put on some really low calorie diets in the past, I know that they could be dangerous - particularly where breakfast cereals are prescribed twice a day.
I was put on one 1000 calorie a day diet, high carb, of course, to be healthy, and still put on weight, but could scarcely get to work. I did not lose much weight when it was reduced to 900 calories, so it went down to 800 - it might have gone lower, but one Saturday I needed to go shopping and simply did not have the energy to go to the shops, and there was no food in the house. Luckily in the middle of the afternoon an icecream van came around and I just managed to get to the door and flag it down - I bought two cones and that was enough to get me to the shops before they closed. It was in the days before Sunday opening, so I do not know what would have happened without the icecream.
The idea that low calorie diets could cause collapses was ludicrous to my doctor at the time, even though I was white as a sheet and my hair was falling out.
Just after that I began to eat low carb and lost weight so easily I could have cried.
 
archersuz said:
I've been LCHF for 8 months now, and it still takes a lot of thought, and I still have low moments often in the supermarket when I see something that I used to eat and really enjoy. How long does it take for it to take no thought or restriction? I'm not sure I will ever reach that point :(
Click to expand...
It's a whole new approach to begin with, but I think it can become second nature. I've been doing it for three years - two months after diagnosis - and as soon as I realised NHS advice would kill me; but it can be very difficult walking into some places and thinking that there is nothing in there that is safe to eat.
 
archersuz said:
I've been LCHF for 8 months now, and it still takes a lot of thought, and I still have low moments often in the supermarket when I see something that I used to eat and really enjoy. How long does it take for it to take no thought or restriction? I'm not sure I will ever reach that point :(
Click to expand...

The automatic calorie restriction thing never happened for me. Even when I really tried raising the fat levels - I quickly stumbled on things like nuts and double cream which were like crack cocaine.

I love food, and I also still miss all the things I used to have. No amount of time passing seems to have changed that. So consciously avoiding things that I like and monitoring input seems to be required.

There's worse problems to have of course - I've managed to find plenty of things which I like and can have, it just does feel very limiting at times, plus even the things I can have, I need to have a consciously controlled amount of.
 
Back
Top