Prof Roy Taylor's work on reversing type 2 diabetes

[Bluetit1802]

I would hazard a guess that if the overworked doctor and nurse were aware that you had lost weight to the extent that your BMI went from 31 to 21(as indicated in your signature), then they would draw the conclusion that your normal blood glucose was due to that. In other words, you are glucose intolerant with a BMI of 31 but quite tolerant with a BMI of 21. This would accord with common sense and Prof Taylor's researches, but why £2.5 million has been spent on Prof. Taylor in proving that this happens is something of a mystery to me.

My BMI dropped those 10 points over 3 years ago now. No-one mentioned my weight. Although I see your point.

 

[Fleegle]

I would hazard a guess that if the overworked doctor and nurse were aware that you had lost weight to the extent that your BMI went from 31 to 21(as indicated in your signature), then they would draw the conclusion that your normal blood glucose was due to that. In other words, you are glucose intolerant with a BMI of 31 but quite tolerant with a BMI of 21. This would accord with common sense and Prof Taylor's researches, but why £2.5 million has been spent on Prof. Taylor in proving that this happens is something of a mystery to me.

Well I have no idea whether 2.5million is a good or bad use of research money - but the amount of publicity it has given and the new hope for many people not gifted with the knowledge others already had probably works out at worth it. And if fact, just enlightening those who took part who could have done it another way but didn't - probably saves NHS a good sum.

And at last there seems to be some science. The science could be wrong - and I cannot wait for that - when someone says "we have researched his research and we have found that in face....." then we will get somewhere. So actually I personally think it was a good use of money.

Personally - and I can only talk for myself and I didn't pay for it - I am so so pleased that someone did this work and worked out what is going on and allows others to build on it.

That is just me though - look for the positives - look for good news.

 

[Biggles2]

So the study showed that if NHS spend the money in this way, they would get some results. It's a real shame that LCHF was not included, as we will all be told there is no evidence that it works, as no "approved" studies have ever been funded to find out if it works.

According to the Declaration of interests section, several of the authors declared interests in either Counterweight and Cambridge Weight Plan or both. Two were employed by Counterweight (one of whom is a Counterweight shareholder) during the course of the study. Some received fees and or funding. So it's not altogether surprising that LCHF wasn't included. Maybe we should approach Kerrygold to sponsor a LCHF research study!

 

[Fleegle]

According to the Declaration of interests section, several of the authors declared interests in either Counterweight and Cambridge Weight Plan or both. Two were employed by Counterweight (one of whom is a Counterweight shareholder) during the course of the study. Some received fees and or funding. So it's not altogether surprising that LCHF wasn't included. Maybe we should approach Kerrygold to sponsor a LCHF research study!

That is a superb idea. What an exceptional plan to get someone, somewhere to do a similar study on LCHF as they have on VLCD. It would be good to have a raft of research to read and track longer term trends, risks and impacts.

And it does not matter who sponsors it because when the research is published people who want to believe it, want to try it want to understand it, well they will. Those that don't - wont and will pull it apart. That is not personal to ND it is the case on every piece of research I have seen in my experience. So Kerrygold - egg firms - grass fed beef association. It makes no odds.

And another reason it matters not a jot is that Prof Taylor say's in nearly every interview that there is no need to use the shakes. Hardly a glowing advert for the Counterweight or Cambridge plan.

And finally - in a personal email to me from the Newcastle team they went to great lengths to say that not only do you not need to use the shakes - you can also if you prefer use any shakes and I quote "Most supermarkets and health food shops stock their own brand and it is very reasonable to try several according personal taste. All are likely to have a reasonable nutritional value." I tell you what - those sponsors ought to get the darn money back!

 

[ringi]

I think you will find that the connection between Prof Roy Taylor and these two companies started after the original results with the “Newcastle Diet” as a way to enable the NHS to rollout the diet on a large scale. These companies also clearly wish to understand how their shakes can be used in the reversal of Type2, and there is no better way than to employ once of the researcher as a consultant.

(Part of what these companies do is "free" training for GPs on VLC diets.)

The original research used a different make of shakes they were given for free; it then turned out that the company would not sell them in the UK.

Likewise, the leading “low carb” researcher are connected to companies that provide low carb products, as that is what they believe in. Hence it is much more a case of people wanting to put their research to use, rather than a true complicit off interest.

 

[Fleegle]

I think you will find that the connection between Prof Roy Taylor and these two companies started after the original results with the “Newcastle Diet” as a way to enable the NHS to rollout the diet on a large scale. These companies also clearly wish to understand how their shakes can be used in the reversal of Type2, and there is no better way than to employ once of the researcher as a consultant.

(Part of what these companies do is "free" training for GPs on VLC diets.)

The original research used a different make of shakes they were given for free; it then turned out that the company would not sell them in the UK.

Likewise, the leading “low carb” researcher are connected to companies that provide low carb products, as that is what they believe in. Hence it is much more a case of people wanting to put their research to use, rather than a true complicit off interest.

@ringi - really well put. I was much more clumsy but completely agree. If I owned a company I was passionate about providing a product - I would sponsor research to prove it. I would still want that research to be independent.

Anyway - well said!

 

[AdamJames]

Well I have no idea whether 2.5million is a good or bad use of research money - but the amount of publicity it has given and the new hope for many people not gifted with the knowledge others already had probably works out at worth it. And if fact, just enlightening those who took part who could have done it another way but didn't - probably saves NHS a good sum.

And at last there seems to be some science. The science could be wrong - and I cannot wait for that - when someone says "we have researched his research and we have found that in face....." then we will get somewhere. So actually I personally think it was a good use of money.

Personally - and I can only talk for myself and I didn't pay for it - I am so so pleased that someone did this work and worked out what is going on and allows others to build on it.

That is just me though - look for the positives - look for good news.

Agreed. And I think the distinction between the various 'Newcastle Experiments' needs to be clear (this is in response to the post that you quoted, not your post)...

The way I see it, the DiRECT study wasn't mainly about proving that the idea worked. The first experiment did that spectacularly well. The DiRECT study had an extra focus: it would find out, in a real-life setting, whether people would actually stick to the kind of process used in the 2011 experiment.