• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Newcastle Diet, Reversal, Professor Taylor's / Dr Fung's Views


Your profile appears to say all your blood tests are normal?
 
SunnyExpat said:
Your profile appears to say all your blood tests are normal?
Click to expand...
They are normal because of behavior modification - not metabolic reversal (and completely unrelated to weight loss - my BG was within normal ranges within 3 days of diagnosis when I still weighed more than 190 lbs (at 5' 2.5"))

In his tape, Dr. Taylor talks, jokingly, about the blueberry muffin test. Someone who followed his diet to reverse their diabetes sent a photo of their blood glucose meter displaying 75 (4.17 mmol/l). That test was 1 hour after eating a blueberry muffin. If I ate a blueberry muffin, at 1 hour I would probably be somewhere on the wrong side of 11.1. ( I haven't actually tested a blueberry muffin, but I have tested a half slice of whole grain bread (no sugar, no berries, with butter)) - it is one of the few times since diagnosis I have been over 7.8 (my recollection is 9.4).

So - I can eat fewer than 20 carbs per meal for the rest of my life - and look normal, but I still have a damaged metabolic system. The suggestion that temporary near-starvation would force the pancreatic cells to repair themselves (rather than replacing a damaged cell with an exact duplicate of the damaged cell) might mean actual reversal - not just BG control via behavior modification.

Unfortunately - the October 2014 tape suggests Dr. Taylor is now back to the same-old same-old: Lose a bunch of weight and good things might happen. If that's all it is, my flavor of diabetes doesn't work that way.

(If the reversal is "just" weight loss related - no point in trying his diet. The amount he suggests I need to lose is at least a month in my rear view mirror, with no metabolic improvement. If it is something else - it might be worth a try.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

@AndBreathe

Yes I have poundage I can lose, and the answer to your question is actually 47lbs before I am underweight ! I am shocked that its that much. I look at myself in the bathroom in the mornings and I figured I was more skinny than I am clearly not 100% buff yet! LOL

Richard Doughty http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/may/12/type-2-diabetes-diet-cure experienced a similar phenomena. He'd lost a good deal of weight but couldn't get T2 into reverse. So he went on a strict ND and within 11 days was cleared. I know the effort I've put in has been exceptional. I cycle up to 75 miles a week 3 or 4 light weight but intense weight lifting sessions and I am not seeing it. There's a few regulars at the gym I'm at that are I suspect T2DM guys in my age bracket (if you will) I am certainly not a malingerer. With the known numbers of folks here in the US that are obese, it amazes me most appear still to have no clue..

It is funny how one looks at data though, 95% of those kids who had bariatric surgery reversed T2. I think the discrepancy between that number and Pr. Taylor's 43% recent successful study ratio is probably the effort on the part of the participants of his study. If you constrict your eating ability (Surgery) the process seems more effective way of a forced cleaning of liver and pancreas. When you are on 3 shakes a day there is always the possibility of cheating yourself sneaking in a muffin or candy bar whatever.

I think I'll start ND on Saturday and see what happens..

LBB
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You might want to take a look at Dr. Taylor's video here: https://campus.recap.ncl.ac.uk/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=c3bef819-e5f4-4a55-876f-0a23436988ed

It's what I summarized above. I found it a bit surprising, given the suggestions here that the diet itself was crucial.

(Not trying to discourage you from trying - just sharing what I found.)
 
We may want to note Dr Taylor's criteria for remission (http://care.diabetesjournals.org/co...ract?sid=a9ea4397-5c6b-4620-b779-284b7be369de)
  • Twelve of 30 participants achieved fasting plasma glucose <7 mmol/L after return to isocaloric diet (responders), and 13 of 30 after 6 months
  • HbA1c fell from 7.1 ± 0.3 to 5.8 ± 0.2% (55 ± 4 to 40 ± 2 mmol/mol) in responders (P < 0.001) remaining constant at 6 months (5.9 ± 0.2 and 7.8 ± 0.3% [41 ± 2 and 62 ± 3 mmol/mol], respectively).
  • The responders were characterized by return of first-phase insulin response."
It is the last one that most of us don't seems to be able to restore. Does the return of first-phase insulin response means we can have our cake and eat it?
 
One of the things that Taylor doesn't seem to address is the shift in gut hormones that apparently occurs with bariatric surgery. I don't know that anyone has proven that the same thing happens with the very low calorie diets. Don't recall seeing anything about that - maybe Fung covers it in his fasting posts, but not sure on that point.

I'm in the same boat as you, @Neohdiver - lost greater percentage of weight than Taylor said, etc, etc, but know for sure that I'd fail the blueberry muffin test - just like I failed the mango test! - just as I fail every time I eat more than 25g of carbs in any one meal
 
kokhongw said:
  • The responders were characterized by return of first-phase insulin response."
It is the last one that most of us don't seems to be able to restore. Does the return of first-phase insulin response means we can have our cake and eat it?
Click to expand...

Yes. That is what has apparently happened for a number of people.
 
kokhongw said:
  • The responders were characterized by return of first-phase insulin response."
It is the last one that most of us don't seems to be able to restore. Does the return of first-phase insulin response means we can have our cake and eat it?
Click to expand...
Exactly what's happened with me. Judging from the 1 hour post prandial tests, my first phase insulin response is just as bad as it's been since I was diagnosed and hasn't changed with the amount of weight lost.
 
Looks like we are getting greedy here .

But hopefully this study will start to shift the treatment goals towards remission and not just delaying the progression of T2D.
 
Like @Neohdiver and @Indy51 my weight loss already exceeds the % quoted, plus my 1st stage insulin went west at 4 years old (45 years ago) when I became a reactive hypoglycaemic.

For me, the horse bolted so long ago that it now lives in the Elysian Fields.

But I would like to reiterate the first point I made: if a bit tubby, then weight loss is a good idea.

The bad idea is tagging unreasonable expectations on it.
 
So slow weight low (or behaviour modification) seems not to align itself with the same benefits the Newcastle Diet may show?
 

I think the other factor to remember about surgery patients is that they have little choice but to comply with a regime of eating a little and often. Yes, of course they can still just eat liquidised chocolate and fires, often, but will still lose weight due to the actual volume they can physically consume, and thereby the amount of insulin required to metabolise it.

I would be interested to view stats for those patients long term - for the ones with a band, and therefore reversible/removable, who can then go on to manage their own lifestyles. Those with permanent stapling and the like are different again.

There's much talked about gastric surgery but a BMJ article points out some side effects to be considered:

http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/suppl/2016/03/10/bmj.i945.DC1/moom024533.ww1_default.pdf

That wouldn't be for me, for sure.
 

How is first phase insulin measured?
 
I'm struggling to understand a lot of this.
Newcastle Study was looking at calorie restriction for 8 weeks. I thought that this is an ongoing study. When are we likely to see any results from this? I had read the results from the initial pilot study which seemed to have a better success rate than the one with 30 participants. As far as I can see, from what I've read there is no suggestion of carb restriction.
Dr Fung seems to be talking about fasting. I've only read a little of his links so may well have missed a lot of things. I've also found him talking about LCHF.
Both would seem to be advocating weight loss but in different ways.
 
SunnyExpat said:
So slow weight low (or behaviour modification) seems not to align itself with the same benefits the Newcastle Diet may show?
Click to expand...
Dr. Taylor claims slow weight loss of an equivalent amount, by whatever means, will have the same benefit. I've now read another paper in which he claims the weight loss required may be more significant than previously thought for reversal.

Paradoxically, he keeps studying his extreme calorie restrictions (two small studies, the most recent yesterday), getting results with his 8-week 800 calorie diet, marveling that the change consistenty happens in week 2, but when he talks about it he generalizes it to all significant weight loss.

From a paper on his website:

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/magres/research/diabetes/documents/Diabetes-Reversaloftype2studyJune15.pdf

I haven't seen many (any?) claims that LC diets are anything other than treating the defining symptom: high blood glucose - and that if you stop eating LC, your BG will do exactly what it did before you changed what you were eating.

So - correct as to low carb (behavior modification); Dr. Taylor asserts that a slower but equivalent weight loss would be just as effective. Disappointing, since that seems to me to be really old news.
 
Taylor's second study was published yesterday or the day before (hence this thread). The results were better with people with a recent (<4 years) diagnosis, than with those with a diagnosis longer ago. The diet he used was not focused on carb restriction, but by nature of the items permitted (and the calories) it is relatively low carb. He also says he is testing his current theory that it is significant weight loss (not near starvation) that reverses diabetes - but the two randomized groups in his larger, long-term study are extremely low calorie meal replacements - or "standard guidelines" (which, we all know, does not routinely result in significant weight loss).

Fung advocates fasting - and apparently talks favorably about Taylor's very low calorie diet - I doubt he would be so thrilled about the chatter Taylor is doing about the Newcastle diet not being critical to success.

I'm trying to sort it out quickly - if there is something special about fasting, the time for me to try it is now (I've only got 22 lbs to go to my goal weight - less than the average weight loss on the Newcastle diet). But the diet's creator says there's nothing special about it (but keeps using it as the basis for his research). If he is correct that it is just weight loss - there's no point in stressing my body by cutting back another 30% on calories.
 
I think the primary reasons he uses restricted calorie, rapid weight loss shakes in the studies is twofold - easy to make sure all the participants are getting standard amounts, and the shorter the study, the cheaper it is to run.

Both those views are common sense speculation, not gospel from the ND papers, which I haven't read in a looooong time.
 

Fung believes that 'stressing your body' by fasting is a myth.
Taylor only has evidence that the calorie restricted diet works. All other responses seem to be based on hearsay from correspondence to him, or responses to questions where people are encouraged to lose weight by any means.
However, as he says, "Different approaches suit different individuals best."
I would suggest, if you need convincing in some way, the Newcastle Diet is probably not one that would be easy to stick to. You need to find a methodology you personally are happy to stick to, and not be swayed by others' opinions, and you seem to have found your choice already.
 

It depends on your idea of carb restriction. 4 shakes is 80g of carbs a day, + 200 calories of veg, which by definition are carbs, so 50g of carbs there, so 130g of carbs in all, 12g of fat, 42g of protein, to make up the 800 calories. Taylor specifically states that the body will cope with this, and indeed all the test results appear to agree. It has been tried with altered ratios on here, mainly less carbs, I've no idea if the altered diets worked though.
 
Hi,
My GGT went up from 35 to 143 in my first two years of finding out I had diabetes. I cut down on carbs but was not low carb until last September. When I started controlling my diet I upped my fructose because they told me fruit was good for me and lost two stone slowly..
It is only by going low carb and cutting the fructose my liver is down to a GGT of 72. Hba1c 44.. no meds.
Btw living on the beach I am slightly taller than you and my bmi is in the 23 region so you are not alone. I am still T2 but like Brun I have also R.H.which didn't get controlled until I went low carb.
D.
 
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.…