My Results with theNewcastle Diet

[AndBreathe]

I'm an independent consultant and most of my work is behind a desk. Though I try to break up that monotony as much as possible by doing house chores, or running out to the store for things. I do work from home at the moment.

So when I'm not actively working out I'm trying to remain active throughout.

To your second inquiry, I don't know what my levels were pre-A1C if that makes any sense. All I know is that when I got spot checked by my doctor he always called them "fine". The only time I was checked and showed high BG was minutes before I went into surgery for my back. The doctor said my BG was very high and I explained that I was on Prednisone and his response was "Oh, that will do it then".

Even way before my diagnosis I made a massive lifestyle change where I completely cut out refined carbohydrates from my diet and began a regular exercise routine. So the numbers I posed as my baseline were based on that low carb, exercise filled lifestyle. What they actually could have been prior to that is anyone's guess. All I know is that my A1C was 6.6% meaning that my BG must have exceeded 8.9 to arrive at that average.

It was frustrating at first to accept because I started checking my BG at home for my own personal health reasons. I started way before I was diagnosed and never saw anything higher than a 130 immediately after meals.

One thing I did think I figured out about Dr. Taylor's post research assessment is that they seemed to use a very lax set of standards to declare people free of diabetes. By that it seems they were going by the 11 mmol OGTT standard which I find to be quite high. I've seen other standards where 8.9 is considered diabetes for the OGTT.

And to be honest I just typed all of the above out but I forgot the point I was trying to make. Sorry about that.

I was referring to your baseline numbers not being high.

 

[Neo_USA]

Thank you. Glad to know that. Just don't like the idea that someone would be getting advice from us on forum without having medical support in the first instance.

I'm glad you think that because I would feel the same as well.

I really need the insight to know if my BS are too low on the NC diet and I think I'm getting that it is. I just ate 2 slices of bread at 3pm and I checked my BG at 4:30pm and it read 98. Maybe I'll check again at 5pm to see where it ends up exactly 2 hours after.

As I still want to continue with the diet it looks like cutting back on the exercise is the thing to do. I hope eating the bread doesn't screw anything up for me as a result of wanting to continue the diet.

 

[Neo_USA]

I was referring to your baseline numbers not being high.

Oh, yeah.

That's what I wanted to say. That I felt like that my baselines were high, but I don't know because I'm new to the diabetes culture. And they quite possibly were much higher before I was actively checking them regularly, but I'll never know what they were because I had no cause to be checking then.

Based off the all the guidelines I've read my baselines are definitely considered diabetes and not seen in persons without diabetes. That's why I also made a point about the NC findings where they were using the 11 mmol mark to declare patients free of diabetes which seems entirely too lax for my taste considering what we do know about the disease today.

I pray that I never see the 7.0 or higher on a consistent basis. The prospect of it scares me deeply.

 

[AndBreathe]

I'm glad you think that because I would feel the same as well.

I really need the insight to know if my BS are too low on the NC diet and I think I'm getting that it is. I just ate 2 slices of bread at 3pm and I checked my BG at 4:30pm and it read 98. Maybe I'll check again at 5pm to see where it ends up exactly 2 hours after.

As I still want to continue with the diet it looks like cutting back on the exercise is the thing to do. I hope eating the bread doesn't screw anything up for me as a result of wanting to continue the diet.

Please don't get carried away by the numbers, and worry they're not high enough. 91 is over 5; do you think that's low?

You are undertaking this course of action to improve your body's response to food, or at least that's my interpretation of your response to Andrew's comments on his own blood. Your body bringing it's bloods back into line promptly, after carbs, is exactly what you're after.

Otherwise, I don't quite understand.

 

[AndBreathe]

Oh, yeah.

That's what I wanted to say. That I felt like that my baselines were high, but I don't know because I'm new to the diabetes culture. And they quite possibly were much higher before I was actively checking them regularly, but I'll never know what they were because I had no cause to be checking then.

Based off the all the guidelines I've read my baselines are definitely considered diabetes and not seen in persons without diabetes. That's why I also made a point about the NC findings where they were using the 11 mmol mark to declare patients free of diabetes which seems entirely too lax for my taste considering what we do know about the disease today.

I pray that I never see the 7.0 or higher on a consistent basis. The prospect of it scares me deeply.

I don't recall Prof Taylor declaring anyone with a score of 11 free of diabetes, unless you are referring to a fast up and down spike after a carb hit! Can you quote the relevant paper?

 

[andcol]

That is amazing.

So would you consider your diabetes "reversed"? Do you think you'll see an elevation again when you get older?

That's precisely my goal to get to where I can have non-diabetic levels without having to worry about maintaining a rigorous lifestyle.

Two very good questions. I think the answer to both is yes.
To clarify why I think yes for the latter - it is just things wear out and no matter how much I turn it around now there has been some damage so with age I will get worse but only time will tell if I can remain outside diabetic range. I am only 50 so if I can manage 25years like this I will be a really happy person.

 

[andcol]

Don't worry about 7 that is normal. I test my wife and daughter and they regularly go into 8s at their peaks and they live on sweet sugar stuff so are used to it. My peak tends to be around the same as my daughters which is a little higher than my wife's. Whilst you aren't eating much carb you will never get hugely elevated numbers but there comes a time when you need to increase your food levels and that could mean carbs. I started a thread on this precise topic. The first few days are scary until the pancreas wakes and then it is fine

As an additional note if I really over do the carb (as in half a box of turkish delight or an enormous portion of bread and butter pudding or lemon meringue pie) I can go to 10.5 but that is my absolute maximum and never higher. Always a scary time but 10 mins on the tread mill and I am back at 5. I do these sugar fests to infrequently for my pancreas to be ready for them (maybe once a month).

 

[Neo_USA]

Please don't get carried away by the numbers, and worry they're not high enough. 91 is over 5; do you think that's low?

You are undertaking this course of action to improve your body's response to food, or at least that's my interpretation of your response to Andrew's comments on his own blood. Your body bringing it's bloods back into line promptly, after carbs, is exactly what you're after.

Otherwise, I don't quite understand.

I'm not sure if this is a rhetorical question but based on my current level of understanding 91 is high. It's not the 5s that I'm worried about but the 4s and 3.8 I've seen over the past few days while being on the diet.

I do want normal BG responses after eating any kind of meal. My initial thought is that I was already low carb prior to starting the NC diet, and I plan to continue that after the diet. I just wasn't seeing my BG levels reacting appropriately after meals. They would just stay elevated in the 5s hours after eating. Though I'm not seeing that trend now being on the diet.

But like I said I was quite happy with the 4s until I hit 3.8 and started feeling woozy. I was curious to know if this was a problem for me and if I should discontinue the diet. Because as it seems now if I continue to the letter then I'm potentially going to be seeing 3.8 and maybe lower and feeling the effects of it.

Or I'm not sure I understand too well the point you're drawing. You have to forgive us Americans we're all not too sharp.

 

[Neo_USA]

I don't recall Prof Taylor declaring anyone with a score of 11 free of diabetes, unless you are referring to a fast up and down spike after a carb hit! Can you quote the relevant paper?

In the results section of the study titled "Post-intervention observation"

Starts: "At the follow-up 12 weeks after completion of the dietary intervention..."

Later in that same passage it reads:

"with a 2 h OGTT plasma glucose of 10.3 +- 1.0 mmol/l. Three participants had recurrence of diabetes as judged by a 2 h post-load plasma glucose > 11.1 mmol/l."

So right there he's saying that they're using the standard of 11 mmol to diagnose diabetes while those < 11 are deemed fee of diabetes.

Edit: Or that's how I understand it to mean after reading it.

 

[Neo_USA]

Don't worry about 7 that is normal. I test my wife and daughter and they regularly go into 8s at their peaks and they live on sweet sugar stuff so are used to it. My peak tends to be around the same as my daughters which is a little higher than my wife's. Whilst you aren't eating much carb you will never get hugely elevated numbers but there comes a time when you need to increase your food levels and that could mean carbs. I started a thread on this precise topic. The first few days are scary until the pancreas wakes and then it is fine

As an additional note if I really over do the carb (as in half a box of turkish delight or an enormous portion of bread and butter pudding or lemon meringue pie) I can go to 10.5 but that is my absolute maximum and never higher. Always a scary time but 10 mins on the tread mill and I am back at 5. I do these sugar fests to infrequently for my pancreas to be ready for them (maybe once a month).

That actually does bring me some relief. Thanks for sharing that.

There is one thing I'm wondering though. I have read that even non diabetics can get into the 10s after eating something really sugary. Do you feel that is true?

One of my friends we checked him 45 minutes after eating instant oatmeal that had sugar and his reading was 175 (9.7). Granted that it was 45 minutes, but I immediately felt like there was something wrong and he needed to go get checked.

I've seen a couple of other studies that suggests that non-diabetics pretty much never go over 140 regardless of what they eat. The information out there is confusing and conflicting.

 

[AndBreathe]

My point was that a level of 91 is not high. It relates to around 5.

From this site:

Normal and diabetic blood sugar ranges
For the majority of healthy individuals, normal blood sugar levels are as follows:

• Normal blood glucose level in humans is about 4 mM (4 mmol/L or 72 mg/dL)
• When operating normally the body restores blood sugar levels to a range of 4.4 to 6.1 mmol/L (82 to 110 mg/dL)
• Shortly after a meal the blood glucose level may rise temporarily up to 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL)

For people with diabetes, blood sugar level targets are as follows:

• Before meals: 4 to 7 mmol/L for people with type 1 or type 2
• After meals: under 9 mmol/L for people with type 1 and 8.5mmol/L for people with type 2

If you look at the after meal normal readings, you will note up to 110mg/dl is considered acceptable in the UK. So, back to my point; 91/5 is not high.

I think I would recommend you take a step back from this and do a bit more thinking, and reading. Everyone. Everyone creates their own bell curve when they eat; it's just a question of what volume is below the line.

So, take a step back. Revisit your reading. Do some further thinking and ask us further questions, but you have to have an understanding of a reasonable expectation.

 

[AndBreathe]

In the results section of the study titled "Post-intervention observation"

Starts: "At the follow-up 12 weeks after completion of the dietary intervention..."

Later in that same passage it reads:

"with a 2 h OGTT plasma glucose of 10.3 +- 1.0 mmol/l. Three participants had recurrence of diabetes as judged by a 2 h post-load plasma glucose > 11.1 mmol/l."

So right there he's saying that they're using the standard of 11 mmol to diagnose diabetes while those < 11 are deemed fee of diabetes.

Edit: Or that's how I understand it to mean after reading it.

I read that as being that 2 people's diabetes returned when they scored 11.1mmol/L after a 2 hour Oral Glucose Tolerance Test. So, effectively they are being re-diagnosed as diabetic, not free of it.

 

[Neo_USA]

My point was that a level of 91 is not high. It relates to around 5.

From this site:

Normal and diabetic blood sugar ranges
For the majority of healthy individuals, normal blood sugar levels are as follows:

• Normal blood glucose level in humans is about 4 mM (4 mmol/L or 72 mg/dL)
• When operating normally the body restores blood sugar levels to a range of 4.4 to 6.1 mmol/L (82 to 110 mg/dL)
• Shortly after a meal the blood glucose level may rise temporarily up to 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL)

For people with diabetes, blood sugar level targets are as follows:

• Before meals: 4 to 7 mmol/L for people with type 1 or type 2
• After meals: under 9 mmol/L for people with type 1 and 8.5mmol/L for people with type 2

If you look at the after meal normal readings, you will note up to 110mg/dl is considered acceptable in the UK. So, back to my point; 91/5 is not high.

I think I would recommend you take a step back from this and do a bit more thinking, and reading. Everyone. Everyone creates their own bell curve when they eat; it's just a question of what volume is below the line.

So, take a step back. Revisit your reading. Do some further thinking and ask us further questions, but you have to have an understanding of a reasonable expectation.

I think for me that's part of the problem. I did so much reading that I found a lot of conflicting information. Such as the American Diabetes Association recommends < 5.5 is a good FBG and basically anything over could suggest diabetes, where as I've seen others that say 5.1 is the mark and yet another still that says 4.7 is the mark. And the same goes for Post-Prandial.

I've seen sources that say non-diabetics never go over 140, and others that say they do so regularly.

So yes I don't have an understanding but I think it's largely due to the conflicting information that exists. But as you say as a result of reading all of that material and asking questions to counselors and doctors I came up with my own idea of where I would like to see myself. What I do know is that I do have diabetes and I'm trying to 'shoot the moon' of which you're telling me to take a step back. I completely understand that because I'm very much that personality type that likes to 'go all in' and to get results now! Typical American thinking.

It's back to the drawing board I guess.

 

[Brunneria]

I think for me that's part of the problem. I did so much reading that I found a lot of conflicting information. Such as the American Diabetes Association recommends < 5.5 is a good FBG and basically anything over could suggest diabetes, where as I've seen others that say 5.1 is the mark and yet another still that says 4.7 is the mark. And the same goes for Post-Prandial.

I've seen sources that say non-diabetics never go over 140, and others that say they do so regularly.

So yes I don't have an understanding but I think it's largely due to the conflicting information that exists. But as you say as a result of reading all of that material and asking questions to counselors and doctors I came up with my own idea of where I would like to see myself. What I do know is that I do have diabetes and I'm trying to 'shoot the moon' of which you're telling me to take a step back. I completely understand that because I'm very much that personality type that likes to 'go all in' and to get results now! Typical American thinking.

It's back to the drawing board I guess.

I take a very simple view - most of the recommended levels have been selected for economic reasons by people on committees, who do not have diabetes and will therefore not have to cope with the longterm complications that come from too high BG levels.

For me, the lower the better.

So for those numbers you quoted, I would pick the lowest. Every time.

Doesn't mean I hit them, but they are a target.

 

[Neo_USA]

I read that as being that 2 people's diabetes returned when they scored 11.1mmol/L after a 2 hour Oral Glucose Tolerance Test. So, effectively they are being re-diagnosed as diabetic, not free of it.

Oh. No, no, no.

I think we're sort of saying the same thing here just in different ways.

To articulate yep the 11.1 would very well seem to have a recurrence of diabetes, but in the same breath he's saying that the ones that measured 10.3 were not simply because he singled out the > 11.1 group as having a recurrence of diabetes.

I was just speculating that means they're saying that < 11 is not diabetes where my base understanding thus far says that it's still diabetes so long as it's > 7.7 according to another organization's standards.

Thus drawing a bigger conclusion that the levels considered to be diabetes in laboratory testing using certain international guidelines is too lax and premature for the study to declare anyone < 11.1 to be diabetes free.

I read an article where the author drew the same conclusion and posted the same skeptical question.

 

[Neo_USA]

I take a very simple view - most of the recommended levels have been selected for economic reasons by people on committees, who do not have diabetes and will therefore not have to cope with the longterm complications that come from too high BG levels.

For me, the lower the better.

So for those numbers you quoted, I would pick the lowest. Every time.

Doesn't mean I hit them, but they are a target.

That's interesting because I read somewhere about the politics of the ADA and the author drew the exact same conclusion among others. Basically, levels were set intentionally high for economic and political reasons. That the levels established today by the ADA were to guarantee that anyone diagnosed at these levels would never test negative again.

Thus leading to severe complications once they do reach those levels - making an argument that those levels should be tightened in order to prevent severe complications.

I share a similar mindset that lower is better and I don't just want to target what's considered "good enough" by some closed door committee with an agenda.

 

[Pipp]

I have been trying to keep up with this thread. So much information in such a short time, and I am unable to give it my full attention right now.

Firstly, well done @Neo_USA for making the decision to follow the Newcastle diet. I appreciate your anxiety about the BG levels. I was concerned that you felt ill, and also worried that you may not be getting support and monitoring by medical team.

@Andrew Colvin has recently had success with Newcastle diet. He gives excellent advice. I am three years post ND, and although I am still around 5 stones overweight, I have had non-diabetic BG since. Even when I do daft things and overload on high carb, rubbish food.

I wonder if some of your symptoms are due to anxiety regarding the BG readings? Also, being so eager to get BG control so early in the diet? Although when I did ND I stuck to the meal replacements with no deviation from the plan for 9 weeks, I realise that level of perfectionism was probably not essential,. As long as you keep the carbs low, it is the calorie reduction that matters. So, if you are exercising a lot, have some more veg. Also, instead of the excessive exercising, would you benefit by replacing one exercise session a day with some mindfulness relaxation? Just take time to be still, calm, and relax.

Wishing you well
Pipp

 

[Indy51]

It is my understanding (though goodness knows where I read it!) that a small amount of supplementary oil was advised. Also veg.

I'll put out a call to @Pipp , and @Indy51 who will have much more knowledge about this than me.

You recall correctly. The Optifast site specifically states that people should take at least a teaspoon of olive oil a day as a precaution against gallstones. Unfortunately the notes at the Newcastle Diet site don't mention it.

 

[Pipp]

You recall correctly. The Optifast site specifically states that people should take at least a teaspoon of olive oil a day as a precaution against gallstones. Unfortunately the notes at the Newcastle Diet site don't mention it.

I didn't take oil when I did ND because I was following the Newcastle academic papers that were available at the time. No mention of oil in them. No mention in the instructions for product I used for the meal replacement either, (Lipotrim). I already had huge gallstones when I started , but with hindsight, would probably have benefitted from taking oil, or even continuing with cod liver oil and evening primrose oil capsules.

 

[Neo_USA]

You recall correctly. The Optifast site specifically states that people should take at least a teaspoon of olive oil a day as a precaution against gallstones. Unfortunately the notes at the Newcastle Diet site don't mention it.

Yikes.

So is it the fat content of the oil or something more specific about the olive oil?

Can I eat a little something with fat in it. Does cooking with olive oil count or do I need to consume fats in a more direct way?