Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
In the news.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Grateful" data-source="post: 1639967" data-attributes="member: 438800"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>that</em>.</p><p></p><p>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, <em>very</em> 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Grateful, post: 1639967, member: 438800"] 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 [I]that[/I]. 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, [I]very[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
In the news.
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…