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
Food and Nutrition
Low Calorie Diets
Modified ND for (at least) the last 19 lbs to my weight loss goal
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="Neohdiver" data-source="post: 1111747" data-attributes="member: 258692"><p>My thinking - just recording it, in case it helps someone else and so that I can touch it up later when I have time to do more thorough research (or find the notes I took).</p><p></p><p>The ND was created based on the premise that it was the rapid decrease in calories - followed by a sustained diet at that calorie level that created the remission. The composition of the diet was largely convenience and to create reliable data: 600 calories from a known, consistent, source. The remaining 200 came from real foods to create variety so it might actually be sustainable. The meal replacement was arbitrary (Nestle was willing to donate the shakes), and I have found no explanation for how the list of permitted/not permitted foods was created.) </p><p></p><p>The study author NOW says that the rapid decrease in calories is irrelevant. What you eat is irrelevant. How you lose weight is irrelevant. The rate at which you lose weight is irrelevant. The point is to get below your personal fat threshold. Since I've already lost far more (24%) than the longstanding recommendation to lose 10% of your body weight - as well as more than Taylor's more recent recommendations (15%) - I don't buy his reasoning. It also doesn't explain why he has deviated from his original theory of mimicking the bariatric surgery, without actually doing the surgery, the evidence on which he is basing his altered theory, or why he continues to study the 800 calorie diet (a third study is underway), if a different diet - or rate of loss works just as well.</p><p></p><p>A challenge for me is that I have been consuming 1200 calories (or fewer) a day since October, and have been in nutritional ketosis most/all of that time (I don't actually check, but most days I am below the carb threshold that generally suggests nutritional ketosis). Dropping 400 more calories for me is not going to create the kind of drop experienced by most people starting this diet. (That should make it easier for me to adjust to - but perhaps less effective?)</p><p></p><p>A theory (very generally) behind the ND is that the diet consists of so few calories that your body shifts into survival/muscle conservation mode and shifts to burning off body fat as an energy preference. At some tipping point (1 gram of fat lost from the pancreas - according to some studies), the pancreas starts behaving and its first phase insulin response returns (that 1st phase response normally signals the liver to temporarily shut down the glucose production, since there's food on the way, and is apparently absent in diabetics long before BG levels rise enough to trigger a diabetes diagnosis). Restoration of the first phase response seems to be key to remission v. management.</p><p></p><p>Short term (or long term - but I'm not going there) fasting appears to work similarly. The best results, in terms of insulin response, seem to be tied to 16-18 hours or more of fasting.</p><p></p><p>So the question then becomes - if I want to try to trigger the restoration of the first phase response, is some form of fasting or some form of ND a better option (or just keep on with the 1200 calorie restriction - which is projected to take off the remaining weight over a 6 month period).</p><p></p><p>Given my family history, I'm not inclined to believe that weight loss alone will put me into remission (or even help manage my diabetes). I explored meal replacement shakes/drinks - I haven't seen any that pass muster for something I want to put into my body (especially for 75% of my daily calories, especially starting with a large calorie (and possibly micro nutrient ) deficit for 5+ months already). And I haven't seen anything by anyone who suggests that the shakes are magic (aside from, "It's what was tested") I considered 36-12 fasting - but there are too many unexpected events I'd need to negotiate on fasting days.</p><p></p><p>So - here I go!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neohdiver, post: 1111747, member: 258692"] My thinking - just recording it, in case it helps someone else and so that I can touch it up later when I have time to do more thorough research (or find the notes I took). The ND was created based on the premise that it was the rapid decrease in calories - followed by a sustained diet at that calorie level that created the remission. The composition of the diet was largely convenience and to create reliable data: 600 calories from a known, consistent, source. The remaining 200 came from real foods to create variety so it might actually be sustainable. The meal replacement was arbitrary (Nestle was willing to donate the shakes), and I have found no explanation for how the list of permitted/not permitted foods was created.) The study author NOW says that the rapid decrease in calories is irrelevant. What you eat is irrelevant. How you lose weight is irrelevant. The rate at which you lose weight is irrelevant. The point is to get below your personal fat threshold. Since I've already lost far more (24%) than the longstanding recommendation to lose 10% of your body weight - as well as more than Taylor's more recent recommendations (15%) - I don't buy his reasoning. It also doesn't explain why he has deviated from his original theory of mimicking the bariatric surgery, without actually doing the surgery, the evidence on which he is basing his altered theory, or why he continues to study the 800 calorie diet (a third study is underway), if a different diet - or rate of loss works just as well. A challenge for me is that I have been consuming 1200 calories (or fewer) a day since October, and have been in nutritional ketosis most/all of that time (I don't actually check, but most days I am below the carb threshold that generally suggests nutritional ketosis). Dropping 400 more calories for me is not going to create the kind of drop experienced by most people starting this diet. (That should make it easier for me to adjust to - but perhaps less effective?) A theory (very generally) behind the ND is that the diet consists of so few calories that your body shifts into survival/muscle conservation mode and shifts to burning off body fat as an energy preference. At some tipping point (1 gram of fat lost from the pancreas - according to some studies), the pancreas starts behaving and its first phase insulin response returns (that 1st phase response normally signals the liver to temporarily shut down the glucose production, since there's food on the way, and is apparently absent in diabetics long before BG levels rise enough to trigger a diabetes diagnosis). Restoration of the first phase response seems to be key to remission v. management. Short term (or long term - but I'm not going there) fasting appears to work similarly. The best results, in terms of insulin response, seem to be tied to 16-18 hours or more of fasting. So the question then becomes - if I want to try to trigger the restoration of the first phase response, is some form of fasting or some form of ND a better option (or just keep on with the 1200 calorie restriction - which is projected to take off the remaining weight over a 6 month period). Given my family history, I'm not inclined to believe that weight loss alone will put me into remission (or even help manage my diabetes). I explored meal replacement shakes/drinks - I haven't seen any that pass muster for something I want to put into my body (especially for 75% of my daily calories, especially starting with a large calorie (and possibly micro nutrient ) deficit for 5+ months already). And I haven't seen anything by anyone who suggests that the shakes are magic (aside from, "It's what was tested") I considered 36-12 fasting - but there are too many unexpected events I'd need to negotiate on fasting days. So - here I go! [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Food and Nutrition
Low Calorie Diets
Modified ND for (at least) the last 19 lbs to my weight loss goal
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.…