ND DiRECT updates

[bulkbiker]

Just noticed that just prior to the news announcement about NHS trialling the ND via prescription a large amount of extra info was added to the DiRECT trial website.
https://www.directclinicaltrial.org.uk
Lots of links to a newly(ish) formed company called Counterweight.
There are now lots more details about post ND eating apparently recommending 3*400 calories meals a day...hmmm

Thought the low-cal amongst us would like to know..

 

[HSSS]

Did you notice near the end....

You can also find guidance on the website of Diabetes UK, and we recommend that all people with diabetes should join Diabetes UK: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/home. (WARNING: Do NOT confuse this with a commercial website (....diabetes.co.uk) whose content may appear attractive, but which is often incorrect or misleading).​

 

[Oldvatr]

Did you notice near the end....

You can also find guidance on the website of Diabetes UK, and we recommend that all people with diabetes should join Diabetes UK: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/home. (WARNING: Do NOT confuse this with a commercial website (....diabetes.co.uk) whose content may appear attractive, but which is often incorrect or misleading).​

DiRECT is the largest research study, to date, ever supported by the charity Diabetes UK.

 

[DCUKMod]

Did you notice near the end....

You can also find guidance on the website of Diabetes UK, and we recommend that all people with diabetes should join Diabetes UK: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/home. (WARNING: Do NOT confuse this with a commercial website (....diabetes.co.uk) whose content may appear attractive, but which is often incorrect or misleading).​

Could you please provide the link to that specific statement, HSSS? Perhaps I'm being dim, but I can't find it.

 

[HSSS]

Could you please provide the link to that specific statement, HSSS? Perhaps I'm being dim, but I can't find it.

In remission resources
https://www.directclinicaltrial.org.uk/Documents/Patient Info Website Feb 2018.pdf

 

[smw99]

Thst is an outrageous statement! This site has helped put me into remission and I eat real nutritious food. The advice on the forum is totally free!

 

[HSSS]

Because the .org site is so comprehensively accurate and not at all misleading re type 2 and carb heavy foods

I wonder if they could explain that statement and which information they think is inaccurate and misleading?

 

[bulkbiker]

Did you notice near the end....

You can also find guidance on the website of Diabetes UK, and we recommend that all people with diabetes should join Diabetes UK: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/home. (WARNING: Do NOT confuse this with a commercial website (....diabetes.co.uk) whose content may appear attractive, but which is often incorrect or misleading).​

No I hadn't seen that.. what a nasty snarky lot they are...

 

[Oldvatr]

In remission resources
https://www.directclinicaltrial.org.uk/Documents/Patient Info Website Feb 2018.pdf

I note that DIRECT specifically excluded insulin users, but this addendum includes notes about seeing GP etc. This means that DIRECT cannot be used to prove remission in ID T2D so this addendum should make that clear at the outset.

I note too that DIRECT found that 22% of those in remission at 12 months were back taking diabetic meds again, and the meds for hypertension seems to have increased up again even in the maintenance phase.

Also noted the very quick rise in weight that those dropping out of each phase experienced.

They are keeping stumm about the 9 people that suffered sugnificant adverse reactions to the diet, and those seem to be over and above the 32 that dropped out (>10% dropout rate?) This is an interim report, and the presentations slides are not definitve so the full report may shed light on these.

The report does not give numeric data on those needing secondary intervention with Orlistat(sp ?) or other weight loss assistance.

 

[Oldvatr]

No I hadn't seen that.. what a nasty snarky lot they are...

The Piper is paying for the tune in this case. Its their baby.

 

[bulkbiker]

The Piper is paying for the tune in this case. Its their baby.

Direct from DUK HQ I imagine...

 

[HSSS]

The Piper is paying for the tune in this case. Its their baby.

Regardless of who’s paying what, I could understand a disclaimer of the ilk “make sure you look at our site” but to make specific reference to one particular alternative with unsubstantiated claims I would have thought was bordering on libellous.

 

[bulkbiker]

Did you notice near the end....

You can also find guidance on the website of Diabetes UK, and we recommend that all people with diabetes should join Diabetes UK: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/home. (WARNING: Do NOT confuse this with a commercial website (....diabetes.co.uk) whose content may appear attractive, but which is often incorrect or misleading).​

Well spotted I missed that bit completely.. we have made the powers that be aware...

 

[Brunneria]

Hi Everyone.

Thanks for finding this info @bulkbiker
Always interesting to read new info on the Newcastle Diet studies.

On the subject of the negative comments about diabetes.co.uk, I would strongly suggest that none of us here on the DCUK forum respond with retaliatory comments. No point in creating some tit for tat insult war, because there are never any winners.

Also probably worth noting that the derogatory comment seems to be referring to the diabetes.co.uk main website, not this forum. The main website information is well researched and regularly updated, so not vulnerable to such criticism.

 

[Oldvatr]

Regardless of who’s paying what, I could understand a disclaimer of the ilk “make sure you look at our site” but to make specific reference to one particular alternative with unsubstantiated claims I would have thought was bordering on libellous.

I suspect this site is not so innocent looking at what gets posted in the Forum. However, it is different when in a formal report and should not be there. It is also the NHS website reporting this.

It does tie in with the advice given out to GPs to tell patients to avoid Dr Google and similar prophets of misinformation. My GP forbade me from using this site in particular, but I am not so sure if he would give this instruction now. I am one of the few patients that he has seen 'resolve'. Our practice does have a large sign in the waiting room to not use unauthorised websites for information.

 

[Guzzler]

I suspect this site is not so innocent looking at what gets posted in the Forum. However, it is different when in a formal report and should not be there. It is also the NHS website reporting this.

It does tie in with the advice given out to GPs to tell patients to avoid Dr Google and similar prophets of misinformation. My GP forbade me from using this site in particular, but I am not so sure if he would give this instruction now. I am one of the few patients that he has seen 'resolve'. Our practice does have a large sign in the waiting room to not use unauthorised websites for information.

That smacks of censorship.

 

[Indy51]

There's a lot of egg on a lot of faces now - all those warnings and still low carb keeps getting results, as Dr Unwin, Virta and others are proving.

 

[HSSS]

Hi Everyone.

Thanks for finding this info @bulkbiker
Always interesting to read new info on the Newcastle Diet studies.

On the subject of the negative comments about diabetes.co.uk, I would strongly suggest that none of us here on the DCUK forum respond with retaliatory comments. No point in creating some tit for tat insult war, because there are never any winners.

Also probably worth noting that the derogatory comment seems to be referring to the diabetes.co.uk main website, not this forum. The main website information is well researched and regularly updated, so not vulnerable to such criticism.

I tend to agree with all you have written except that just because it is the main website referred to rather than the forums for an official report to name one specific site without substantiation is completely inappropriate at best. If they feel the need they could state not to refer to non nhs websites etc. ( we may learn something we’re too dumb to understand - in their eyes - or that doesn’t fully agree with them!) Just because it is a well researched website doesn’t mean it is not vulnerable to unfounded or unsubstantiated criticism

 

[Indy51]

I tend to agree with all you have written except that just because it is the main website referred to rather than the forums for an official report to name one specific site without substantiation is completely inappropriate at best. If they feel the need they could state not to refer to non nhs websites etc. ( we may learn something we’re too dumb to understand - in their eyes - or that doesn’t fully agree with them!) Just because it is a well researched website doesn’t mean it is not vulnerable to unfounded or unsubstantiated criticism

Yep, I'm hoping TPTB will ask them to prove their criticism or remove it. It's an outrageous slur.

 

[kokhongw]

In remission resources
https://www.directclinicaltrial.org.uk/Documents/Patient Info Website Feb 2018.pdf

It only expose their glaring lack of confidence in the success and effectiveness of their current pet remission methodology. It does not suit their agenda and narrative that there exist many other possible paths to remission that may be more effortless and sustainable...

When Dr Taylor and team specifically refuse to consider/monitor insulin/ketones levels but focus exclusively on a 800 calorie magic number...to achieve weightloss, not specifically fats loss...it suggest a less than open mindset to explore the real reasons/parameters that leads to successful sustainable remission.