Newcastle comes to Oldham

[borofergie]

out of curiosity I tried to work out a standard meat/veg starchy carb meal that you could eat that had the same macro nutrient content as the optifast shakes;
I found the content on the website (which seems to differ a bit from the paper, I think that it was because it was the ready made shakes, never mind its similar and showed me how difficult it was to do )
carbs 20g, protein 14g, fat 3 g. ie 50% carb, 35% protein, 16.8% fat (doesn't add up, they obviously rounded )

Trying to make a meal with meat and veg in these proportions is really difficult, meat obviously has both but so do veg It's actually hard not to get one or the other too high. (might have been easier if I'd used white fish) I didn't look at vitamins and minerals.(though having decided on red pepper looked for a green veg)
My nearest tries were:
50g rump steak, 70g new potato, 100g red pepper, 50g cabbage. This worked out at 19.9g carb, 13.84g protein, 2.93g fat.
60g of chicken breast , same veg; 19,9g carb,16,34g protein,2.96g fat.
Lot easier to use the shakes!

Good work! Your menus look more appetizing than the shakes, but guess it would be easier to cheat on the old portion sizes.

 

[tree-peony]

you know, I have been wondering if there is an element of restricted meal size involved in the success of the Newcastle diet, bearing in mind it's based on reversal of Type 2 in people who have had bariatric surgery?

 

[andrewk]

you know, I have been wondering if there is an element of restricted meal size involved in the success of the Newcastle diet, bearing in mind it's based on reversal of Type 2 in people who have had bariatric surgery?

Yes - restricted in calories. I have a pet theory, though, that it is really the inevitable reduction in carbs that comes with a hypcaloric diet that is the important element.

Andrew

 

[Defren]

you know, I have been wondering if there is an element of restricted meal size involved in the success of the Newcastle diet, bearing in mind it's based on reversal of Type 2 in people who have had bariatric surgery?

That along with restricted carbs (9g a day in my case) could very well be the reason. I must confess to not really giving the science behind the diet a great deal of thought, my only concern in lower BG results. In that respect, whatever the science, it does work, and I am thrilled.

 

[tree-peony]

you know, I have been wondering if there is an element of restricted meal size involved in the success of the Newcastle diet, bearing in mind it's based on reversal of Type 2 in people who have had bariatric surgery?

Yes - restricted in calories. I have a pet theory, though, that it is really the inevitable reduction in carbs that comes with a hypcaloric diet that is the important element.

Andrew

No I meant that the meal SIZE is as important as the calorie intake

 

[andrewk]

Physical size? If you do mean that, I cannot see why it should have any effect. I reckon that a wheelbarrow full of mushrooms will always have less effect on blood sugar than a much smaller 1kg bag of sugar.

Andrew

 

[Defren]

Physical size? If you do mean that, I cannot see why it should have any effect. I reckon that a wheelbarrow full of mushrooms will always have less effect on blood sugar than a much smaller 1kg bag of sugar.

Andrew

Not sure I agree Andrew. Portion control has to be a factor, for example if you have bacon, low carb sausages, fried eggs and mushrooms in a controlled portion size you are keeping good BG control, and good weight management. If you have the same meal the size of a tray, the carb content, will increase (sausages, as all sausages have some carbs unless 100% meat) but your calories count will rocket. If you increase your calories beyond a reasonable level, weight gain is inevitable. So low carb and a sensible meal size is IMO the way to go.

 

[tree-peony]

there are also cells in your stomach that stimulate both insulin and glucose to be released when they're stretched (ie you've eaten food) according to Bernstein at any rate!

 

[andrewk]

defren, I really don't understand your last post. Unless I still misunderstand, the question being asked is about whether the physical size of a portion, irrespective of calories or carbohydrate content affects blood sugar or weight loss. I have seen no evidence that this is true and logic & common sense suggest that it isn't.

If a wheelbarrow full of raw mushrooms has, as I suspect, way fewer calories and much less carbohydrate than a much smaller 1kg bag of sugar then it will have less effect on blood sugar. In fact, I'd bet that the amount of energy expended in chewing a wheelbarrow full of mushrooms is greater than its calorific content - so your blood sugar might well go down if you did manage to eat it all before your stomach exploded.

Andrew

 

[tree-peony]

THE CHINESE RESTAURANT EFFECT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Diabetes Solution, page 95)

Years back, a patient asked me why her blood sugar jumped significantly every afternoon after she went swimming. I asked what she ate before the swim. “Nothing, just a freebie,” she replied. As it turned out, the “freebie” was lettuce. When I asked her how much lettuce she was eating before her swims, she replied, “A head.”

The small amount of digestible carbohydrate in lettuce should not by itself have caused her blood sugar jump, even considering the quantity she ate. The explanation lies in what I call the Chinese Restaurant Effect. Some Chinese restaurant meals contain large amounts of protein or slow-acting, low-carbohydrate foods, such as bean sprouts, bok choy, mushrooms, bamboo shoots, and water chestnuts, that can make you feel full.

During and after meals, the stomach empties a slurry of food mixed with liquid into the small intestine. The liquid passes through the small intestine and is absorbed, mostly in the large intestine. The solids stretch the walls of the small intestine as they slowly pass through. Cells in the upper part of the small intestine release hormones that signal the pancreas to produce insulin when they’re stretched. (The pancreas is the gland responsible for manufacturing, storing, and releasing insulin in the body.) Large meals cause greater stretching of the intestinal cells, which in turn will secrete proportionately larger amounts of these hormones.

A very small amount of insulin released by the pancreas can cause a large drop in blood sugar, and so the pancreas produces the less potent hormone glucagon to fine-tune the potential excess effect of the insulin. Glucagon acts to increase blood sugar.

The problem arises when the insulin-producing cells of your pancreas the pancreatic beta cells make little or no insulin. Glucagon is still produced, but adequate insulin is not available to offset its effect.

The first lesson here is: Don’t stuff yourself. The second lesson is: There’s no such thing as a freebie. Any solid food that you eat (even pebbles) can raise your blood sugar if you’re diabetic. Trivial amounts, however, such as a small stick of celery, will have negligible effects.

 

[Defren]

defren, I really don't understand your last post. Unless I still misunderstand, the question being asked is about whether the physical size of a portion, irrespective of calories or carbohydrate content affects blood sugar or weight loss. I have seen no evidence that this is true and logic & common sense suggest that it isn't.

If a wheelbarrow full of raw mushrooms has, as I suspect, way fewer calories and much less carbohydrate than a much smaller 1kg bag of sugar then it will have less effect on blood sugar. In fact, I'd bet that the amount of energy expended in chewing a wheelbarrow full of mushrooms is greater than its calorific content - so your blood sugar might well go down if you did manage to eat it all before your stomach exploded.

Andrew

You can't take carbs and calories out of the equation though, as calories certainly are present in every meal. If you have a smaller portion of a meal, it stands to reason you have a smaller calorie intake. If you find a calorie intake that keeps you at maintenance once you have reached your goal weight, you know that if you eat more calories, you will gain, less and you will loose. So from my point of view, portion size, along with carb intake is vital.

It's a case of learning to listen to the switch in your brain, that tells us we are full. I can certainly remember the days when I would be full eating Sunday lunch, but couldn't bare to leave any, so would eat all on my plate, then end up on the couch asleep, no energy, no nothing. I am going to listen to that switch, along with giving myself much smaller portions. I can't see any other logical way forward.

You can't compare sugar and mushrooms, but you can compare mushrooms and mushrooms. A plate of mushrooms is a lot less calories than a barrow full.

 

[andrewk]

You can't compare sugar and mushrooms, but you can compare mushrooms and mushrooms. A plate of mushrooms is a lot less calories than a barrow full.

Yes, that is obvious - but the original question was about whether physical size of the meal makes a difference, irrespective of carbs or calories. You keep answering a different question.

Andrew

 

[Defren]

You can't compare sugar and mushrooms, but you can compare mushrooms and mushrooms. A plate of mushrooms is a lot less calories than a barrow full.

Yes, that is obvious - but the original question was about whether physical size of the meal makes a difference, irrespective of carbs or calories. You keep answering a different question.

Andrew

I am not taking this any further Andrew, simply because each meal has calories and the vast majority carbs. Without taking into account carbs and calories we could all eat a swimming pool of food a day. I have given my opinion, you have given yours. I see no point in dragging this particular discussion out any further. All food has calories so a question asking about meals with non is IMO moot!

 

[catza]

Please don't argue you two as you are both right and life is too short to fall out over things such as this, especially when you are both doing so well on your very restricted diets.

During my research I read a technical article about food stretching the small intestines and the effect this has upon receptor cells/insulin but I can't find it again :cry: The only article I can find that covers the same subject is this one about the ... All You Can Eat Effect.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Diabetes-and-the-All-You-Can-Eat-Effect&id=1779701

 

[andrewk]

Please don't argue you two as you are both right and life is too short to fall out over things such as this,

Agreed.

During my research I read a technical article about food stretching the small intestines and the effect this has upon receptor cells/insulin but I can't find it again

I didn't know about that. Thanks for the link

Andrew

 

[Defren]

Please don't argue you two as you are both right and life is too short to fall out over things such as this,

Agreed.

During my research I read a technical article about food stretching the small intestines and the effect this has upon receptor cells/insulin but I can't find it again

I didn't know about that. Thanks for the link

Andrew

I would never fall out with Andrew, he is walking this same crazy path as I am. Support is what it's all about. This topic was one we just didn't agree on, agree to disagree and carry on with the support.

He's ok really, mad as a hatter for doing the ND diet, but then so am I so what can I say? :lol:

 

[andrewk]

He's ok really, mad as a hatter for doing the ND diet, but then so am I so what can I say? :lol:

Oh dear ...... we are going to disagree again. Mad as a hatter? Yes, I accept that - but I always have been - nothing new there. I think that, in the circumstances, I'd be even madder if I didn't do the ND diet. If there is the slightest chance of reversing this condition, I have to take it.

Andrew

 

[andrewk]

I have been on this diet now for two weeks. Results do far are:

Day 0: FBG 7.4, breakfast+2 7.8, wgt 105.3kg (16st 7.5lb)
Day 7: FBG 6.2, breakfast+2 7.7, wgt 101.7kg (16st 0lb)
Day 14: FBG 5.5, breakfast+2 7.7, wgt 100.3kg (15st 10.5lb)

My fasting level is now reliably under 6 each day, I've lost 3.5lb this week and 11lb since I started the diet two weeks ago. I am under 16 stone now, which is the lightest I've been since I hung up my cricket boots nearly 20 years ago.

I don't want to count chickens, but I think it's going OK

Andrew

 

[catza]

That's a really steady improvement Andrew. When you show your results like that it really emphasises your progress. Onwards and downwards :thumbup:

 

[andrewk]

I'm getting mildly concerned about the breakfast+2 readings, as there is no measurable improvement so far. In the Newcastle study, they did glucose tolerance tests at the start and after 1, 4 and 8 weeks but did not measure blood glucose levels after meals - so I don't really know what to expect. The Newcastle results do show that "First Phase Insulin Secretion Rate" (FP-ISR) was very low in the diabetic group, didn't increase much for some weeks and wasn't fully normalised even by the end of the study period at 8 weeks. It is that FP-ISR that inhibits hepatic glucose production and limits post-meal BGs. As I'm off medication, maybe I shouldn't expect much of an improvement for some weeks yet.

I'll take another reading before lunch and see if it has come down any. I did a few checks pre-lunch in the first week and they were 7.0, 6.9, 7.0 so if that has improved, I think I can relax and stop worrying.

** (edited 12:30pm) Just checked pre-lunch is 5.9, which is fine for this stage of the diet I think

Andrew