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

In the news.

Unfortunately VLC diets such as ND do not suit everyone. I went on one a number of years ago, similar to slim fast, when I was in my early twenties which was only 330 cals per day and I lost about 7lbs in two months! However what was more serious was that it made me ill due to my metabolism going into starvation mode and shutting down my organs to the extent that my doctor told me to eat 3 proper meals a day and sent me to an endocrinologist who told me that I was one of his few patients who could honestly blame their metabolism for not losing weight. I have since managed to lose some weight but that is probably due to taking medicines for an under active thyroid.
 
Short memories, indeed. When you consider that a 'certain diet' was found to be beneficial before drugs were found for the treatment of epilepsy. It seems that there really is nothing new under the sun
 
Guzzler said:
I am in favour of ND as an approach to weight loss and to lower blood glucose but how that transitions to a more normalised diet in the long term is still imo yet to be seen.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit surprised that there seems to be two different opinions. I have followed a low carb diet for 4 years and did very well until a year ago. I have more recently tried the VLCD approach and have managed to lose weight and straighten out my BG.

Since following a very low calorie diet and being quite successful in achieving what I set out to do, returning to just a low carb diet, but still less than 1500 calories per day, my weight has wavered a bit, and my BG has gone back to going up when least expected, especially in the morning, sometimes starting at 03:00 and lasting until 12:00 even though my last meal was at 19:00 and was without obvious carbs.

I think it's probable that I will need to try the VLCD for as long as the 5 months being talked about in the most recent research. It will be very interesting to see how those in this recent research manage when they return to a more normalised diet.
 
I don't care which approach is best.Maybe they are equal but different ways to achieve the same end.Maybe they aren't.

If diet affects changes at a cellular level maybe they are different.If diet affects changes only because of weight change maybe the are the same in terms of outcome.

I went low carb and lost 15% of my body weight in the first 2 months.I lost another 15% of the next 4 months.My bmi is now 19 but am stable, so far.

My point is,if weight loss is the crucial factor I am fine.However if a calorie restriction approach produces changes low carbs doesn't maybe that approach would have been better.Either way I don't think I can afford to change now as I can't afford to lose any more weight.

I'm looking forward to a time when we have reliable data.
 
Would be useful info. Good luck finding a pharma company to fund that research.
 
i wish i had your problem.
 

To be honest woodywhippet, for myself, I would try very hard to refrain from making a statement that the ND won't go into remission after 10 years, until a decent number of those diagnosed 10+ years ago have tried it, as part of a scientific trial.

It may be fair to say the chances of remission are less as time goes on, for a wide variety of reasons, but some of those reasons could simply be the individual ageing and their body's overall ability to recover from their diabetic state, or indeed the increased likelihood of co-morbidities coming into play. It may not be the passage of time itself that is the issue, but perhaps other factors entering play.

I'm not suggesting everyone should totally embrace the ND and do it, after all, I didn't myself (although I have done exceptionally well recovering from my diagnosis and being removed from the Diabetes Register), I just feel that those who want to give it a go - and for whom it is safe to do so - should be able to give it a whirl.

I'm a never say never old girl; there usually being exceptions to every rule.
 
I stand corrected. It is only much less likely.
  1. However, after more than 10 years of diabetes a return to normal glucose control, even with major weight loss, is much less likely.
 
I may be wrong here, but hasnt low carbing been a relatively new thing for younger type 2's as younger type 2's are quite a new group to be diagnosed? I mean, compared the the ones who used to get it in their late 70's and 80's - so the jury is out and everything about long term results is speculation and educated guessing at this stage?

Some things we do know, like low carbing is good, some fats are good, that sort of thing. But the outcomes for those who have had it longer term is sill uncertain so far, until we get the data in.

Happy to be educated if i have misunderstood this.
 
I don't see the ND in the same terms as the more general "calorie-restricted diets." I thought the point of the ND was trying to deal with "fatty liver/pancreas" with a kind of shock treatment (extremely low fat) -- a very temporary diet (months, at the most). By definition you then have to "return" to more "normal" eating, you presumably could not survive on such a diet forever.

The LC (with or without HF) lifestyle is not a "diet" at all, when compared with the ND. It is an adaptation made, permanently, because without drugs, T2Ds cannot process more than a limited quantity of carbs without having high BG.

I am a strong advocate of LC because it worked for me. However, I have also strongly considered doing the ND (and I have a first cousin who is diabetic and actually did an early version of the ND). The point being that if I indeed have a "fatty liver/pancreas" it seems unlikely that my current LC lifestyle has done much about that.

So I just don't understand why ND and LC would even be discussed in the same context. It's apples and oranges. It seems fairly clear to me that they both "work" (in their own, very different ways) as treatments for T2D and I would have thought that several months of ND, followed by permanent adherence to LC, could be very beneficial.
 
Grateful said:
The point being that if I indeed have a "fatty liver/pancreas" it seems unlikely that my current LC lifestyle has done much about that.
Click to expand...

Professor Taylor (of the ND) has himself said that it isn't the speed or method of the weight loss that makes the difference - it is the fact of the weight loss. So he doesn't actually mind if the weight loss is slower, or real food rather than shakes, so long as the individual loses enough weight that some of it comes off the liver and pancreas.

I cannot provide you with the link to where he says this, but from memory, it was in one of his presentations about the 2nd study.

Also, Low Carb (sorry @Fleegle I mentioned it! ) is proven in a recent study to clear fat from the liver surprisingly effectively. Again, no link. I am away from home at the mo, and do not have my usual list of links handy. However, I do recall that the study in question was mentioned by the DCUK NewsBot.

Apologies Fleegle. That was off topic, and I don't want to derail your thread, because I know you didn't want this discussion to devolve into the usual LC wrangle. Will back out now.

Edited to add: here you go @Grateful here is one of the links i was talking about. Hate not giving links, so I had a rummage and found it. The key thing (for me) is that a higher protein and lower carb way of eating seems to reduce liver fat even without weight loss.
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/thr...-liver-in-people-with-type-2-diabetes.111692/
 
Last edited:
paulus1 said:
i wish i had your problem.
Click to expand...
Becoming underweight is just as unhealthy as becoming overweight, there are no differences in risk values re diabetes and the struggle to stabilise a personal optimum weight are equally challenging. Be careful what you wish for.
 
true. but it would be a change to be on the healthy side of skinny. though i think my lose skin would be a sight to see.
 
woodywhippet61 said:
I stand corrected. It is only much less likely.
  1. However, after more than 10 years of diabetes a return to normal glucose control, even with major weight loss, is much less likely.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed - in the more open study where people wrote in there were good examples of people with T2 for over 10 years who had great results. Prof T has said that after 10 years the chances are reduced - but as we do not have the entire data set it is hard to know how much worse.
 
I like a lot of what he publishes but it always seems to have to bite at someone or something and I wish he would prove it with a clinical trial of some sort.

Someone once posted that Dr Fung was for the people and Dr Taylor was for the science and that I think is true IMHO. I think that Dr T could be a lot more open - publish all of his data at earliest opportunity and not just grand stand at conferences.
 
The reason I think this is so important - whether it is LC or VLCD is that if the science continues then it may well lead somewhere. So the premise of the ND is that the severe calorie restriction over the short time (I understood it did matter how long and could not be recreated just by losing weight) was to clear the fat from the pancreas. Now the whole shake thing - VLCD is just the mechanism of getting to that fat so who say's if the science is proven then someone might go the next step and work out how to remove fat from the pancreas. Of course in a safe way not pancreas liposuction.... And if the science is correct and it does allow the Beta cells to work - then it would work just as well for size 0 models to.

And that was what was exciting to me - that at last someone is publishing data which is debunking the myths around T2.
As are those advocating LC - so support both equally and surely at some point science will win out and who knows some form of progression towards remission.
 

As I understand it, lots of much older T1s were treated with lower carb diets in the past, before insulins were as sophisticated as they are today. One of the oldies (83 and thriving) in my local DUK group low-ish carbs these days, and tells me that is more relaxed for him than in past times.

He may not be representative at all, but I don't disbelieve him for a moment. He's a great old guy and very proud to be 67 yrs diagnosed and still riding his bike every day. That man is determined to get his 70 year medal from Diabetes UK.

I'm one of his not-so-silent admirers.
 
I agree, which is why I clearly state that I am talking about the Type 2's who have been diagnosed in their younger years.
 
I still want to see the actual results, ie the paper as published in the Lancet and supporting data. And then followups to see if patient's T2 stays in 'remission', especially if people go back to high carb diets. Main advantage to ND seems to be it's supervised and nutrient managed, so perhaps safer than other crash diets.. But those kind of diets can lead to yo-yo effects and weight soon comes back. The press release versions are rather light on data, and I wish all public funded research was published in open-access journals.

And on a personal note, I don't think ND would work for me simply because I can't stand chocolate/vanilla/strawberry flavoured vomi.. I mean shakes. It's partly the texture, and partly the synthetic taste that puts me off.
 
The link to the study is: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)33102-1/fulltext?dgcid=twitter_social_lancet&utm_campaign=lancet&utm_content=64036041utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Unfortunately, whole paper is behind a paywall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…