B
badcat
Guest
Awsome!
-
Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »
Prof Roy Taylor's work on reversing type 2 diabetes
- Thread starter Begonia
- Start Date
bulkbiker
BANNED
The reason I ask is that I am slightly concerned that if you do end up gaining weight what will you do next? Calorie restriction may be good short term but I worry about metabolic slowdown if continued for too long.
CherryAA
Well-Known Member
What I don't get is that its perfectly possible to set up an eating protocol of 800 calories per day which is LCHF. people just need to understand that in order for a diet to be LCHF you don't actually NEED to eat the HF part- if you don't eat it - your body will supply it for you by releasing it own fats - your body won't necessarily recognise the difference between the fats its consuming because you put them in your mouth versus the ones you already possess.
When you add in the external fat to LCHF you are mainly making the diet palatable and long term repeatable, but there is nothing stopping you skipping the F part for 8 weeks if you can .
( I'm female 165 cm) I need 70g of proteins to give me enough of those - 280 calories so step one is to figure out which proteins you will eat to give you those.
Step 2 - you need stuff to go with that - above ground vegetables
so if you still want to eat LCHF but be VLC for example
breakfast - poached egg on spinach with mushrooms and onion
lunch - chicken thigh skin on with cauliflower
dinner - smoked mackerel and broccoli
snack yoghurt with a few blueberries and 10g crushed nuts
add a multi vitamin pill, and a fish oil capsule,
total result 816 calories 93 % nutrition, 70g protein, 20g carbs, fats 47g ( 35% protein 14% carbs and 50% fats inc 14% saturated)
When you want to ease up on the calorie restriction add in more and more fats as necessary, the other two can pretty much stay constant.
The issue then really becomes do you have the willpower to go that hungry, and if you don't as long as you add fats as the extra calories you will still be LCHF.
There is no need to add in carbs you wouldn't eat on LCHF and thus give yourself sugar spikes just because you do want to try VLC - do both and get the best of both worlds.
Fleegle
Well-Known Member
I agree that is all perfectly possible and desirable.
It is a good example of a VLCD and LCH(lowish)F diet. Something I am considering and @bulkbiker is formulating a variant to.
But it isn't the Newcastle diet as undertaken as part of the research project. That prohibits many of the things on the list above. It will be really interesting if in the second post research papers of the current extended trial they update the allowed foods on the 8 week protocol to include dairy. Or even go further and say "eat what you like for 8 weeks as long as you don't exceed 800 calories).
lindisfel
Expert
I am interested in the balance of nutrients in the ND? If you modify it to change the balance and redistribute the sources of the calorie foods it is questionable if it is the ND!
If one has excess weight and lives on body fat for a long time as well as 800 cals per day ND, can one again say the ND is for life?
One wonders what the digested calories are after a gastric bypass.
Derek
If one has excess weight and lives on body fat for a long time as well as 800 cals per day ND, can one again say the ND is for life?
One wonders what the digested calories are after a gastric bypass.
Derek
CherryAA
Well-Known Member
By my way of thinking the Newcastle Diet is simply yet another example of people starting off staring down the wrong end of the telescope.
Our dietary mantra is low fat diet, we know we need to lose weight to get healthier . So we will concoct a potion that is 800 calories and fits these criteria . Hey presto if anyone can actually stick to it - then we will have found the formula to cure diabetes and sure enough if looks like it does.
There have been formulated weight loss powders for as long as I have been alive that purport to have the magical property of losing weight fast and they have always worked IF people can comply with them - they have probably also always cured diabetes too if anyone had thought to check .
I utterly doubt that there is a magic ingredient in the formula that makes the difference. I think the only thing that makes the difference is the absolute and admirable will power of the subject in complying with the plan.
VLC and LCHF will both result in ketosis eventually, VLC with LCHF quicker with more interesting tasty foods.
My guess would be that for many of the people reporting absolutely superb results on here with an LCHF diet, they have actually already been eating pretty close to a VLC version of it - not least because we all struggle to add in the fats.
Fleegle
Well-Known Member
Yes all true I am certain.
However - whether or not the ND diet is liked or disliked - I was simply pointing out that the current protocol according to the ND web site prohibits those foods. So that makes it a VLCD diet and not an ND diet. The results, as you say are likely to be the same but important for those browsing that the scientific research currently being undertaken is really specific.
I don't know about telescopes.
CherryAA
Well-Known Member
Thanks - I think its marvellous that the guys in Newcastle are doing this and at the very least making it more well known that diabetes is a curable disease and I have nothing but immense admiration for anyone that tries it and succeeds.
I just think that when one views what is going on rationally in the light of all he things we believe in about natural foods - then it should be totally possible to marry the concepts together to get something that is truly an exciting breakthrough that anyone can do without needing to refer to either doctor or buy potions.
That is a diet designed to deliver the minimum carbs for the maximum nutrients, the optimum level of proteins for body size and the rest fats according to taste, appetite and willpower!
CherryAA
Well-Known Member
Fair point - not that I would expect anyone browsing scientific literature to be looking to pay too much attention to my opinions ( intensely frustrating though that is
)
B
badcat
Guest
I would think that there are a few reasons why the ND protocol is shakes for a prescribed period of time with v little variation
1) it is a research programme and nothing more -all it is doing is looking at the effect of a specific short term radical intervention and is not something designed for long term use
2) In all research that looks to establish widely applicable results, you necessarily need to minimise variability or your results are scienfificully and practically meaningless. If everyone is eating the same things then variability is minimised. If on the other hand people can make up their calorie count however they want, then there are way too many variables introduced. Such variability is desirable post research and Im sure the limits of that variability will be the subject of future research
1) it is a research programme and nothing more -all it is doing is looking at the effect of a specific short term radical intervention and is not something designed for long term use
2) In all research that looks to establish widely applicable results, you necessarily need to minimise variability or your results are scienfificully and practically meaningless. If everyone is eating the same things then variability is minimised. If on the other hand people can make up their calorie count however they want, then there are way too many variables introduced. Such variability is desirable post research and Im sure the limits of that variability will be the subject of future research
Last edited by a moderator:
bulkbiker
BANNED
Yes but... and its a big but. the main reason the ND used the shakes was that it was easy to figure out how to do it (and I think Prof Taylor got them free from Optifast) because they offer a fairly precise measure. He himself has said that is doesn't matter what shakes you use and I can't therefore see why 800 calories of real food is that different from 800 calories from artificially made food replacement apart from being 1. nicer to eat 2. probably better for you. But as with all these things it depends on your perspective. As you know in my opinion the ND shakes have way too many carbs and in the early days those trying it on here have had some pretty big spikes that could be easily avoided by doing it LCHF.
B
badcat
Guest
I would agree that 800 cal from various sources is likely to work. It does however worry and annoy me when lchf is given as the holy graile - the lc part is,i think, Universally applicable, although the best level of that carb count will vary for individuals between ketogenic levels and under say 100g. The HF part is I think much less universal - it certainly doesnt suit my body and there are multiple reports on here and on diet doctor of others who experience weight gain and / or digestive problems with elevated fat
Fleegle
Well-Known Member
Again - I don't disagree with you at all.
But the facts of the study are a meal replacement shake and that is the Newcastle diet - anything else is just as valid just not the Newcastle diet (for example, the blood sugar diet, a VLCD diet).
Moreover - on the site - is a specific list of "you cannot eat" foods. If that isn't important I wonder why it is there - or still there?
Once again my disclaimer. I do not own shares in the ND diet, never tried, have tried LCHF - works really well for me (though modify down the fat) - like the idea of VLCD in any form to....
All I am doing here is trying to correct those that state the ND diet is any food - which it isn't (yet) but let us hope it will be in the big reveal in December.
CherryAA
Well-Known Member
I totally agree . Simply I also think that anyone here who wants to try and replicate the results should be able to do that with their own version of a very low calorie diet that suits both their own blood sugars and personal tastes . How honest they want to be with themselves is a personal decision for each of us. (I know I'm often less than honest with myself especially if I didn't weigh something! )
Indy51
Expert
Since Prof Taylor wrote the forward to Michael Mosley's 8 Week Sugar Diet and agreed to his research being used as the basis for the book, then I think we're back to the quote I've read from him before: it's all about the fat loss. There's nothing magical about the shakes or the length of time the diet is followed. I doubt if it's even about weight loss as measured by the scales. It's about fat loss from the liver and pancreas.
CherryAA
Well-Known Member
http://denversdietdoctor.com/dr-nicolai-worm-nutrition-therapy-non-alcoholic-fatty-liver-disease/
As Ive said before I think the HF part of LCHF is a bit of a misnomer , the LC part is a way of limiting the things you eat to prevent spikes so whatever that level is depends on what prevents spikes for the individual, the protein bit - isn't mentioned at all but clearly is a necessary part of any diet- (though god knows at what level).
The HF part is kinda - not compulsory - and can be achieved in a variety of ways depending on what your goal and food preferences are. I don't think its the eating fat bit per se that makes it ketogenic - its the not eating enough carbs / proteins bit that does that. There are plenty of reports that exogenous ketones ( ie the ones in the fats you eat) are of less value to you than the endogenous ones you use when your body is actually burning its fat stores.
As Ive said before I think the HF part of LCHF is a bit of a misnomer , the LC part is a way of limiting the things you eat to prevent spikes so whatever that level is depends on what prevents spikes for the individual, the protein bit - isn't mentioned at all but clearly is a necessary part of any diet- (though god knows at what level).
The HF part is kinda - not compulsory - and can be achieved in a variety of ways depending on what your goal and food preferences are. I don't think its the eating fat bit per se that makes it ketogenic - its the not eating enough carbs / proteins bit that does that. There are plenty of reports that exogenous ketones ( ie the ones in the fats you eat) are of less value to you than the endogenous ones you use when your body is actually burning its fat stores.
CherryAA
Well-Known Member
Syd
Well-Known Member
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/media/wwwnclacuk/newcastlemagneticresonancecentre/files/direct-protocol.pdfWhat is the actual website link ? please
If you read it, you will see that it is not a Newcastle diet anyway. For the first 12 weeks it is the Cambridge Weight Plan, after 12 weeks, horror of horrors, there is a food reintroduction period (12 to 18 weeks) in which the subjects are given food which accords to the Eatwell plate.
https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/theeatwellplate.pdf
Thereafter there is an individually tailored diet for weeks 19 to 104.
Everyone seems keen to starve themselves for 3 months with the Newcastle Diet aka the Cambridge Weight Plan, but few seem that keen on the next part of the experiment, namely the Eatwell plate but this surely must be part of the "Newcastle Diet" must it not?
CherryAA
Well-Known Member
it comes as no surprise that this is all tailored right back to the eatwell plate, the diet itself is a minituarised version of the Eatwell plate, that would probably be a lot more effective for diabetics if it was done as not only VLC but LCHF too .
I am keen to see what they are saying is the foods that must be avoided,
