• 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 »

Mastering diabetes

There's a lot of talking and posting URLs to websites selling a dream, but you've avoided answering the questions below from Oldvatr and none of those URLs you've posted are for independent evidence/testimonials as to the success of your claims:


On another thread, where you were replying to me, you did say the following though, so maybe that explains why you don't have the data - because you stopped doing this diet you're trying to promote:

Diet Dilemmas.

It's easy to decry Eatwell, but there are huge numbers of people in the UK who don't even eat that well, for a variety of reasons including not being able to afford to do so. If the majority were eating Eatwell, there would be quite a bit less of obesity, T2 diabetes, heart disease, strokes...
www.diabetes.co.uk
 
OK guys, I'm going to stir things up a bit - sorry!
That reminder to 'keep it friendly' from @lovinglife was actually meant to be aimed primarily at @Paul_ and not so much at @Beating-My-Betes
(I know this because there is a report open about this thread) - here I am giving away moderator secrets - LOL.
I think it quite amusing that you both seemed to think it was the opposite.
However, the point is keep it friendly !
 
Apologies to mods/admins and whoever my post offended.
 
It's not my favourite website, by any means. I have various disagreements with certain of their information as I do with many in the vegan and plant-based movement(s), including most of the doctors. Their being vegan doesn't give them a pass in my book; quite the opposite, in fact. While I generally have a high intolerance for misinformation, I hold these people to a much higher-standard.

That being said, and in spite of my misgivings, they're helping an ever-increasing number of people to improve their health. So I do what I've advised others here to do i.e I separate the results from the narrative. Just because you got well ditching carbs (fats, in the case of the plant-based crowd) doesn't mean it was the carbs (or fats) that were the issue.

A more nuanced and, dare I say, wholistic approach would be to look at all the other commonalities that might offer clues as to why such distinct and contradictory approaches could work

Anyway...The reason I post links to their site is not to suggest that people should follow the plan, nor to assert that their community's increasing roll-call of success stories is proof of the inefficacy of the low-carb protocols. Again...quite the opposite (Ironically, I think theat low-carb is more successful than likely the majority here do). I post to remind people to keep an eye out for the black swans. Actually, I prefer levitating dogs, myself (Essentially, If you were to claim that dogs cannot levitate, I'd only need to show you one levitating dog for one to (hopefully) re-consider one's world view.

But that doesn't always follow. One could, instead, seek to dismiss what is in front of one's eyes. Some will cry 'Anecdote!' And yes, anecdotal evidence is not very robust, relatively speaking. But interestingly, the value of anecdotes is normally dependent on how closely it comports with one's current world-view. Low-carbers tend to be far more accepting of low-carb anecdotes, and the same applies on 't'other side'.

I personally agree with the notion that 'One levitating sheep is an anecdote; many levitating sheep(s) is data' Anecdotes are data points, from which to hypothesise and then test with more robust scientific enquiry. They are not in and of themselves the end-point, nor are they being put forth as rigorous science.

As for cynicism? I am/was very cynical; Nihilistically so, in fact. And while I used to 'wear' it as a badge-of-honour, I have come to view it as an insidiously negative and destructive force in my life. Fortunately, 'healthy skepticism' has served as a good halfway-house between outright cynicism and outright gullibility. Skepticism cracks the window on cynicisms' closed-mindedness, letting important fresh air/perspectives in.

These days, it's getting more and more common for people to take cynicism to its other natural conclusion - conspiracy thinking. It's not just the wholesale dismissal of studies on the grounds of whoever did the funding, or the complete dismissal of people's work because they dare to put a price on it. But in the case of the MD program, there seems to be the inference that slick marketing/presentation somehow confers dishonesty.

I would find it no surprise that the majority of people here would be skeptical of MD's results. That's not a criticism, in any way. It's natural that people would be skeptical of something so different to their own current view-point. But there's a difference between that skepticism and the inference (And I know this wasn't your particular position) that because the MD program is coming from the perspective of the wfpb movement, and because of the slickness of the presentation, that the veracity of the testimonials should be questioned.

Are all those people lying, or or they fake accounts/testimonials generated by Cyrus and Robbie? (This is rhetorical. I know this wasn't you accusation)

If you happen to believe the testimonials are real (And I tend to believe most here, including you, are rational enough to believe so), then wouldn't the next stage be to start trying to work out what are the commonalities between two (seemingly) completely diametrically-opposed protocols, such that both can bring about such good results for those who are truly compliant?

There is no voodoo/magicmagic to their program in the same way as there is none with the low-carb approach. Both approaches eliminate the same issue, but just come at it from opposite sides.

Anyway...I believe that the space left by the (current) lack of robust science should be filled with honest inquiry, rather than outright dismissal (Your mileage may vary, of course).

..............

Was going to post a short video of David Unwin relating a story about telling his grand-daughter about black swans, but I can no longer find it on Youtube. Perhaps I was dreaming it?
 
Paul_ said:
On another thread, where you were replying to me, you did say the following though, so maybe that explains why you don't have the data - because you stopped doing this diet you're trying to promote:
Click to expand...
This seems to keep coming up. So perhaps I can clear thing up, once and for all:

Firstly, and very importantly, I'm not 'promoting' the MD program or any other vegan or plant-based protocol. I only tend to post the links when this place hits 'critical-mass' of posts blaming carbs for weight-gain, diabetes etc. But I do also post them to make sure that those who don't want to cut carbs, or can't stick to the diet, at least have the seed sown that there might be another option, rather than drop off the forums with no options.

As to your other point? Perhaps I can clear this up, once and for all:

My issue is one of compliance. It's not that I've stopped doing the diet in question; rather, i've not managed to stick to it long enough. I spend so much time off that particular wagon that it has re-routed and no longer stops in my town. If I want to get back on said wagon, i need to walk to the next town

The tendency for people to judge the efficacy of this particular WOE, based on my results, is definitely getting. little bit tired. My personal results are no more a testimony to the hclf WOE of eating than someone who tried and failed at keto would be a statement to the efficacy of keto. I estimate I spend between 6-8 (not always consecutive) days a month 'on plan'. Were I to follow a keto plan in the same manner, I doubt anyone here would accept it if I concluded that the fact I was still diabetic was due to the failure of the ketp diet.

I also don't understand the need for data to come from this site. There're currently enough levitating dogs to make the case for most to take interest...or not. One more won't make any difference.
 
A couple of last points I think worth clarifying:

Firstly, this is a 'Mastering Diabetes' thread. If I can't post links here, where else should I post them?

Secondly, my intention has not been to follow the MD program, but to follow the 'Eatwell Plate'. Despite the low-fat, high-carb, whole-food vegans perhaps coincidentally eating the closest to etwell, and the government guifdelines, there're still certain foods that would be permitted under eatwell that are cautioned against by MD. If I managed to plough through the eatwell plan with some measure of success, no doubt I'd end up naturally gravitating closer to the MD plan, at some point.
 
@Beating-My-Betes: This will be my last post on this particular thread. I lost my way earlier in terms of the reasons I come to this forum and for that I apologise to you, staff, and anyone else reading.

I'm here to help myself get healthier and manage my diabetes, to share conversation, opinions, tips and hopefully a few laughs too with any and all types of diabetic people, from all walks of life, and to hopefully be able to pay all that back at some point and help others who are in the position I've been in for the past couple of months. I love this forum, it's a very special place and it's helped me immensely through an extremely worrying, stressful and difficult period post-diagnosis. This forum has changed my life for the better, so much so I don't even recognise the person I was anymore - it feels like that was an entirely different person now. It has done that, first and foremost, because of the amazing people and the approach used where those people openly post their own personal results, links to scientific papers, independent testimonies and so on. It does this for a variety of approaches, everyone is unique with how diabetes affects them. However, I'm sorry to say it is my opinion that posts, such as yours on this thread and on others, are not helpful to the cause. It was unfair of me to challenge so strongly earlier and I shouldn't have reacted as I did to your post in reply to me. However, in my opinion, it's also unfair of you to post anecdotal, costly and potentially biased resources on a forum where vulnerable people are seeking help. If you want to advocate for a method of diabetes management, I don't feel it's fair or appropriate to just offer your opinion, post a URL to a costly website, and then hold everyone else to account with a different view, without also backing up your opinions. You need to put in the leg work, prove it works through your results, and demonstrate through relevant independent, rigorous research and studies that it works for a wider group too. Anyway, that's why I reacted as I did. I'm not excusing my posts, it's on me alone for my inappropriate responses, but I wanted to convey my perspective.

Once again, it's best that we agree to disagree, neither of us is ever going to be persuaded to the other's point of view. I don't want to be part of turning the atmosphere on the forum into one of conflict. It's too special a place to risk that, so as I said, this will be my last reply on this thread.
 
Anyone remember the levitating guru's? Turns out they were bouncing on a large trampoline while in the lotus position. And yes, Black swans do exist. The late Queen had some on the Thames that belonged to her.

I am open to Low Carb Diet simply because it works for me, and I understand the independant science that explains why it works for others too. As it happens I was involved in this forum as a Newbie, and I had serious reservations over LCHF and keto diets. I argued against it on many occasions, and one of my fellow inquisitors was Dr Unwin. He was at that time advocating low calorie diets for his experiment, and we both shredded the evidence for LCHF but ended up on virtually the same day doing a volte face and acceptng LCHF. Our paths diverged from then on, but I am happy to share my success anecdotes when appropriate. But it is not the only pathway for potential remission. There is surgery. There is Newcastle Diet in many forms. There is the Mediterranean Diet, and even the South Beach Diet has some success stories. But I find the MD approach puzzling since there is no independant science underpinning it and virtually no success testimonials on this website. So I am not able to support it until I can see the evidence in the public domain and held in the science archives. it simply does not float my boat.
 
"Not helpful to the cause"? Not sure which cause you're talking about, specifically. There is only one cause, as far as I'm concerned, and that's to help people beat their diabetes. Limiting options from, yes, vulnerable people is something i believe to be a huge issue.

You aren't the only person here to take the stance that this information be withheld from the general forum discussion. There are now many, also vulnerable people, who have smashed their diabetes into remission following the MD plan. Hiding that information from people is, at least in medical parlance (and in my opinion) an absence of the duty of care.

As for the existence of rigorous scientific evidence being the yardstick for what should be posted here. I'm sure many agree...and yet... Certainly, no one seems to bat an eyelid when certain members recommend the carnivore diet to other members. Unless I've missed something, there is zero rigorous science to back such a protocol. And despite decades of metabolic ward studies that have determined that no particular macro-nutrient is implicated in weight-gain, there are still seemingly weekly posts where carbs are blamed for this very thing. Not only is this notion not supported by rigorous science, but it is contrary to rigorous science. Again...no one (but me) seems to challenge this. Ditto for claims that carbs simpliciter are responsible for T2D.

Worse than that, there are regular occurrences of recommendations for people (especially older women) not to worry about higher cholesterol levels. Putting aside the irony that this notion seems to be borne of low-carb gurus inferring causation from epidemiology, it seems to be a conclusion that is almost if not totally confounded by reverse-causality. Very vulnerable people being advised by lay-people that their high cholesterol may actually be protective is very troubling, n'est ce pas?

And to be very clear, I'm not blaming the members here. While we all have a certain amount of personal sovereignty when it comes to the decisions we make about who and what to trust when considering our own health, it can be difficult to separate the fact from fiction. And it becomes very easy, having found a particular protocol to work, to just implicitly trust the veracity of any/all the information that comes down that same pipeline...without much question (It may start innocently with the cutting carbs, but it soon ends up in a world of testicles (The eating of, and the sunning of; preferably different sets of testicles for each practices )

It's not even that people wouldn't want to know the ins-and-outs of it all. It's just impossible for most of us, even if interested (and presuming available time), to not only learn how to read studies, but to have the various domain knowledge and epistemological/ethical framework to be able to rule out one's own biases from the evaluation process. So it's understandable that we have to 'speculate' somewhat, hedge our bets and go with our guts, when it comes to who we trust.

As I said, in an earlier post, where no science exists there should be honest enquiry and appraisal before outright dismissal. I also reject the notion that I need to demonstrate anything in particular. Why? Because, as I've already said, there is no magic to their program. It's very easy to see how it works.

To speak to some of your other points: Again, I'm not 'sending' anyone anywhere. I'm just showing where those who don't believe in levitating dogs can go and see levitating dogs.

As for the expense criticism: yes...what they're offering is expensive. But what they're offering is a program that includes both group and individual coaching. It's something that most will not need, nor have any interest in. But I'm sure the benfits of such personal coaching, even if in other domains, is not lost on you. Even people at the top of their 'game' understand the value of personalised coaching.

But it is not essential. At the most, one would only need to buy their book. But there's not any need to do even that. Just as with DietDoctor (Who also offer a paid option), the MD guys also offer enough info, recipes etc via their website, youtube videos/streams and via free podcasts. In fact, as long as someone were not interested in the whys-and-wherefores, the program (in not too dissimilar a fashion to a keto diet plan) can be summed up in a couple of sentences and one set of infographics

Anyway, I believe it's important to remember that the sign above the door still says "The Global Diabetes Community", despite what seems like an almost-complete transition to a low-carb forum. I don't think this was the original intent of the owners of the site (Existence of a separate low-carb section in the forum is perhaps testament to this). It is completely understandable how it has happened, however. Survivorship-bias will always ten to crowd out contrary ideas, until the point of being an echo-chamber. Fine for a low-carb facebook group, but perhaps not the intention of a diabetes site. Again I could be wrong.

There is a way to be able to open the conversation wider, at least in terms of the overal philosophy of the community at large. And that is to caveat and disclaim the information being presented. No need for explicit endorsement nor outright denial.

Either way, science or not, I don't see this place ever embracing the MD program. While it is a lot better now, there used to be a much more openly pronounced and openly-tolerated anti-vegan sentiment here. Things have improved immensely, however. That might be due to coincidental circumstances (certain members having left, or not spending too much time here). But perhaps this has something to do with some internal agreement to oust such sentiment from the boards, where possible. I'm grateful, either way. This sentiment is still there, bubbling under the surface, and occasionally pops through in certain posts, but it is much more muted.

Still...the 'vegan agenda' conspiracy thinking runs deep. A shame, really...as there's nothing about achieving success with the MD program that necessitates giving up animal products.
 
I have found a treatise on the Mastering Diabetes website (I am not going to promote this plan by posting a link or the article as I find it may contain misleading information)

The article describes using MD with T2D, and provides insight into the 'science' behind the plan. Much of the article is boiler plate info on T2D from the public domain, but it is the interpretation that the founders of MD put on it that I have difficulty with.

I can see that the founders are coming from the Health and Fitness education stream, and are heavily into CICO explanation of energy in > energy out causing obesity thinking. They are also following the standard sport nutrition path and seem to believe that body fat is lipid fat and that the lipid fat comes direct from dietary intake. so their diet plan says turn the fat tap off and the ectopic fat will be magicked away. i am minded that the Newcastle Diet study showed that the ectopic fat could be measured by an MRI scanner, and used this to demonstrate that a very low calorie diet (VLCal) could remove the ectopic fat quite quickly, whereas lipid fat is usually the last fat to be removed by this sort of diet (think love handles and spare tyres) so the timing for ectopic fat removal does not support lipid fat being removed. What goes in the first stage of a diet is the glycogen stores which is mainly glucose and water. It needs heavy duty dieting to remove adipose fat which is where lipid fat resides.

The thing that the MD founders do not seem to be aware of is that it has been established that dietary fat is carried to the liver by chylomicrons which are large bubbles of Free Fatty Acids (FFA and SFA) to the liver where the FFA are broken up, reorganised, and rebuilt into the FFA that gets into the LDL and HDL. So bits of the diet intake remain, but generally we manufacture the fatty acids that are actually required by the body, and so LDL is produced on an as required basis, not on a meal based regime at all. All our LDL is home made and carries identifiers from our body DNA to identify it as non alien so that our immune system does not attack it. So turning off the oil tap means that our body seeks around for building blocks to make into LDL, So we are designeds so that we can build FFA from glucose, from ketones, from protein , and eventually from muscle tissue. this scavenging will deplete the liver of trigs which is how the liver stores both glucose from carbs, and fructose, and lipid remnants. This takes about 48 hours, and is validated by studies into long term fasting. During this process, ectopic fat is removed during the scavenging that occurs when the body thinks it is being starved. A high fat diet counteracts this scavenging and gives the liver a rest by providing a ready supply of trigs to keep the liver topped up.

So the high carb diet supplies ample glucose to prevent starvation, and the low fat turns the oil tap off. so the body still thinks it is facing starvation because FFA and SFA are essential components for muscle function and building, and also body repair and replacement. So we still have to make LDL, and so scavenging is needed. IMO this is probably OK for short term, but I would not want to be living in this state for long. It is like a crash diet with high BGL levels.

I do not see this diet plan lowering insulin demand or hyperinsulinemia. I have found a study on LFHC diets that found that the low fat diets did not reduce Insulin Resistance or remove ectopic fat certainly in the short term of the studies.

i have posted the link on another thread. It is not an easy read, so i will not post a link here. but the MD hypothesis does not seem to work and this statemenrt is evidence based.
 
Hi @Beating-My-Betes . I know you don't want this kind of analysis, but I felt compelled to add my two cents worth, due to the fact that many folks read these postings, is my understanding. And as you rightly say - this is about us all being here in order to get better, or live better, with diabetes.

So here goes:

"...despite decades of metabolic... studies that have determined... no particular macro-nutrient is implicated in weight-gain, there are still seemingly weekly posts where carbs are blamed for this very thing. Not only is this notion not supported by rigorous science, but it is contrary to rigorous science. Again...no one (but me) seems to challenge this. Ditto for claims that carbs simpliciter are responsible for T2D."

From my own perspective - I say "excess carbs", not carbs per se. And there is certainly rigorous science supporting the idea that we can indeed, and do, have excess carbs, and certainly excess sugar - the ultimate carb - in our food and drink environment. Which, is, rather recent in the history of our species. As is the Type two explosion.

I am also careful to say that carby food is often the most yummy and emotionally satisfying food, which the food industry certainly knows too. I always understand folks that resist the role of excess carbs/glucose forming food in their diet, when their blood glucose system has broken down, ie type two diabetes, insulin resistance based. It is painful. Like giving up cigarettes, which one loves, when one has COPD, or, even, lung cancer. All of us understand these things when it comes to emotions and what we put in our mouth, I think. The pleasure principle is not to be underestimated in what moves us.

"Worse than that, there are regular occurrences of recommendations for people (especially older women) not to worry about higher cholesterol levels...Very vulnerable people being advised by lay-people that their high cholesterol may actually be protective is very troubling, n'est ce pas?"

As an older woman with high LDL levels, I understand that I have dyslipidemia, and this is part of how my type two plays out. It's not that one doesn't worry, it's understanding high LDL levels and one's chances in the game of life stakes. And there is lots of studies on this, and, someone like me - I have done my homework and read up the biomedical scientists and experts who write up on this, and present their studies. Not lay-people - but experts.

My own line to anyone who is worried about their cholesterol is to read up on it themselves, and make their own decision based on what they are reading. As it is, indeed, very controversial.

And most of all - to track their own bio-markers, with medical professionals, and make their decisions based on that information.

"And to be very clear, I'm not blaming the members here. While we all have a certain amount of personal sovereignty when it comes to the decisions we make about who and what to trust when considering our own health, it can be difficult to separate the fact from fiction. And it becomes very easy, having found a particular protocol to work, to just implicitly trust the veracity of any/all the information that comes down that same pipeline..."

This is why we await your results so avidly, and with genuine interest! and I think I am not alone in being grateful to you for coming in here and doing this, and sharing your results and thoughts on the Mastering Diabetes plan. You are absolutely adding to the body of knowledge we have, and in this marvellous Forum, on different Ways Of Eating, and our type two.
 
I’ve been reading this and had a look at the website.

Advice appreciated.

Is it solely a plant based diet? If so, I cannot do it due to the strictures Crohns I also have.

I miss lots of vegetables and others foods I’ve since been “barred” from eating by both my DNS and my GNS

I do not want to confuse myself even further by buying another book that *may* complicate issues for me further

Gentle responses appreciated

Kind regards JoMar
 
I believe the principles of the diet are not specific to plant based, but the MD plan itself is WFPB i.e. fully plant based. It is classed as Low Fat High Complex Carbs ( LFHCC).
 
Oldvatr said:
I believe the principles of the diet are not specific to plant based, but the MD plan itself is WFPB i.e. fully plant based. It is classed as Low Fat High Complex Carbs ( LFHCC).
Click to expand...

Thank you!

My Crohns diet is low residual fat but no seeds, beans etc because of the strictures. Balancing that with the diabetes diet is, how shall I say? Challenging

Kind regards, JoMar
 
My research in another thread has found that the LFHCC diet as described in the Mastering Diabetes plan may be harmful in the longer term
The problem is that the Low Fat forces the body into synthesising its own fat by a process called de novo lipogenesis, This process has been studied, and the report specifically mentions the LFHCC diet as being positively correlated to heart failure HF( positive means badly)
 
Last edited:

Apologies my Crohns diet is low residual fibre & low fat (just checked it).

Appreciate your info & help, thank you.

Kind regards, JoMar

Ps I trust my teams at the hospital but learning an awful lot in here, however I always check with them before altering anything tbh.
 
I still have an unanswered conundrum regarding the Mastering Diabetes Plan, and that is - if we assume that the claims being made are actually true, then where on earth do the excess carbohydrates go? They seem to disappear as if by magic.

Now the diet is classed as LFHCCC which is ultra low fat, with very high carb macro and low(ish) protein.

I have shown that de novo lipogenesis may be triggered, and this will converts some carbs into lFFA to go into the LDL. as a consequence, there will be raised energy demand by the Mesentary to fuel the conversion process which will also use carbs. But there is an awful lot of carbs going in, and apparently not being excreted. But the diet plan is claiming it gives the following
1) normal glycemia and homeostasis (Remission)
2) weight loss so this is either fat or protein (or muscle?)
3) Reduced LDL cholesterol (this I can believe since the de novo lipogenesis process is inefficient so will not be able to syntheise at the same rate as fat metabolism so there will be less fat to shift round the body once the pre diet stores (adipose tissue) is depleted.

I think (2) and 3) are linked. Reduced fat synthesis will force the body to take existing pre-stored fat out of adipose stores and this will lead to weight loss. Although it could be a form of ketosis burning the fat, I suspect not. I suspect it is a slower loss than a keto or VLCal diet, but the brain needs fat, so I suspect that is where a lot of it is going. Trouble is, the brain needs Omega-3 fat and that is one the body does not synthesise very well.

So once lipid stores are depleted, the body should settle down, but with a reduced subset of FFA due to the reduced fat intake.

So how come the blood sugar levels drop to 'normal levels? The de nov lipogenesis will snatch a large(ish) portion of the eaten carbs, but I can't see it taking them all.

So i looked at where glucose goes when its not actually providing energy. The main stores are glycogen repositories and there are two - the liver and the muscles/mitochondria. Now science has measured the amount of glucose that is normally stored in a 70 kg male human. The muscles etc account for around 100g, and the liver usually stores about 400g of glucose. The blood surprisingly only stores around 4 g of glucose but it can go up to about 10g during high energy demand such as HIIT or fighting.

Science also shows us that the glycogen stores get fully depleted in about 48 hours of low activity fasting. Daily living activities will do the same in about 12-22 hours. Moderate exercise will deplete in 90-120 minutes. and HIIT does it in 20 minutes.
It takes about 24 hour to replenish the store back to full capacity (ingesting, digesting, convertion to glycogen, then stored).

So if the diet is depleting glycogen stores, then these are the things needed to deplete the system so that the liver dump does not artificially raise the bgl levels, and get them to normoglycemia. This also assumes that this process occurs and also reduces IR while pumping in high carb sourced glucose. This is the part of the fairy tale I find difficult to assimilate.

So what alternative is there? well some meds slow down digestion and maybe this diet tricks the body into not absorbing the excess carbs and they do indeed get excreted. Not sure what mechanism would be at play for this to happen, but maybe the ultra low fat and de novo lipogenesis is being interpreted as starvation, and the body is reacting with some form of survival mechanism. what effect would it have? i suspect that extra undigested carbs in the gut will increase fermentation leading to gas bloating etc. And this is not being reported as a side effect of this diet. also slowing the gut digestion is not a good idea in terms of gall bladder and bile duct issues. We would expect nausea from gut motility issues, again not reported as a side effect.

So, intrinsically, it would not seem to be at work here. But I have nowhere else to shovel the high carb load. i am surprised no one has asked this simple question or done any research into it. Matter is immmutable.

If the carbs are burnt then there will be an increase in CO2 and water. Again,these are measurable, but no one seems to have monitored this except during exercise routines.

I am flummoxed.
 
Part 2 of a rant from an armchair pipesmoking endo-no-wannabe.
If we again assume the claims made for the MD diet to be true, then we must consider the claim that MD plan reduces Insulin Resistance (IR)

Now the ND study used an MRI scanner to actually measure the fat content in the pancreas, and .separate out the ectopic fat from the normal fat. They showed that a very low cal diet could reduce the ectopic fat quite quickly, and also at the same time established that the diet also improved first phase insulin response, and they made the connection between the two. so there is evidence that diets can indeed improve IR in T2D.

The ND diet is not only Low Calorie, it is also at the same time Low Carb, so I can see mechanisms that could be at play that make their claim viable. But I do not see any mechanism in the MD diet due to the High Carb load especially in the liver which is what the MD claim is the source of the IR. The liver is a glucose store, not a lipid store. It is responsible for creating LDL and HDL and recycling lipids, but it is not a store. it generates de novo lipogenesis too, but does not store them. so why would a low fat diet clear out ectopic fat which is rogue fat in the wrong place. All I can thnk of is that the body is scavenging to make the replacement FFA and that it is the de novo genesis process that clears the IR

But the ND diet only demonstrated IR in one organ, the pancreas. It has been known for a long time that T2D is mainly a muscle IR phenomenon, and so there are two types of IR that need to be removed before Remission is truly dealt with. Since muscles are mainly glucose orientated and heavily dependant on insulin, then this IR is harder to tackle and IMO i don;t think we have a solution yet.
 
Here is one of the papers that Mastering Diabetes uses to back up their claims

DIETARY FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE DEXTROSE TOLERANCE TEST

The dextrose tolerance test is now being extensively employed as a diagnostic procedure. It is most beneficially used in the differentiation of mild diabetes mellitus and renal diabetes. It is also being used, and is believed to be of diagnostic value, in many pathologic conditions, such as...
jamanetwork.com

note that this report has references to chatbot AI and is probably not the original paper but a rewrite. The style of this abstract reads like a modern paper, and is unlikely to be how a medical study would have been written in 1927.

The first OGTT is believed to have been in 1922 but at that time glucose testing was a urine test that involved heating a urine sample with a copper reagent, and then comparing the change in colour against a chart, so was cumbersome to do and not very accurate, so i take the quoted readings as being part of the rewrite and probably not what the original study paper says. it is certain that the results would not have been as accurate as todays readings, which use enzyme technology invented in 1965. (Ames). and these too were colour chart driven. These early bgl meters were also inaccurate, and it is not until the 1980's that they started to give more reliable results. The first digital meters came out in the 1970's.

The paper itself is behind a paywall and only available to registered institutions.
 
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.…