Prof Taylor on BBC4 soon this lunchtime

[AdamJames]

Apologies you haven't edited your post it is still here on this thread..

I was writing my last post while you were writing that, sorry.

 

[ickihun]

I still feel type2 is more to do with liver than fat around organs even in low bmi patients.

In new borns the liver is the last organ to start functioning. Why? Because of toxins the baby would kill their mother with otherwise.
Toxins which a baby liver couldn't filter due to under-development.
That's why gestational diabetes happens. More toxins (sugars) to filter. ND has less sugars to filter too.
Pregnant women get slow digestion to retain more nutrients for baby. More for the liver to do.

The liver is the key to type2 diabetes not 600cals.
The liver can cope better with less carbs and other foods which turn to sugar.

That's why metformin works so well (minus the side affects).
Metformin works on digestion and the liver.

I'm due a good liver detox. It won't reverse my diabetes but I'll need less insulin. So less fat storing.

 

[Guzzler]

There has been many a criticism made of the LCHF lifestyle on this site and countless debates on it. The same should apply to all approaches to the management of Diabetes. When members voice their misgivings this is not dogma. You may think that as a MONW I have a dogmatic view against ND but my views are, rather, the opposite in that I am not biased in either direction, I do not have a player in either side.

Having said that, I have seen the yoyo dieting of many people throughout my life and one thing is true in that at first they swear it is working only to say later that they have tried everything under the sun and feel that they have failed because the weight creeps back. As people with Diabetes we have a vested interest in weight management as a symptom but imo that is secondary to ridding the organs of fat. This part of Taylor's research is what keeps me interested not the loss of overall weight and this in itself is why I have misgivings. To concentrate so much in his, mostly very short, interviews on weight loss as a method to 'reverse' T2 he *may* be accrediting his approach too far.

 

[AdamJames]

There has been many a criticism made of the LCHF lifestyle on this site and countless debates on it. The same should apply to all approaches to the management of Diabetes. When members voice their misgivings this is not dogma. You may think that as a MONW I have a dogmatic view against ND but my views are, rather, the opposite in that I am not biased in either direction, I do not have a player in either side.

Having said that, I have seen the yoyo dieting of many people throughout my life and one thing is true in that at first they swear it is working only to say later that they have tried everything under the sun and feel that they have failed because the weight creeps back. As people with Diabetes we have a vested interest in weight management as a symptom but imo that is secondary to ridding the organs of fat. This part of Taylor's research is what keeps me interested not the loss of overall weight and this in itself is why I have misgivings. To concentrate so much in his, mostly very short, interviews on weight loss as a method to 'reverse' T2 he *may* be accrediting his approach too far.

Very well put I thought. And just for the record, since you mention it, I don't recall ever seeing a post where you seem dogmatic or biased!

Yes Roy Taylor certainly comes across as though he thinks it's all very simple in his interviews. Like you I wondered if it's because he just wants to push the big message home and he's short on time, so I checked the latest version of the web page at Newcastle uni, wondering if, when allowed to be a lot more wordy, the message would be more cautious, nuanced or detail more caveats. Nope:

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/archive/2017/09/type2diabetesisreversible/

As a former scientist myself, this sits very unwell with me. Sometimes it seems like advertising, producing a glossy summary and ignoring all else.

 

[AdamJames]

And here, a newer thing for 2018!

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/latest/2017/12/reversingtype2diabetesforthenewyear/

There's the fascination with 15kg again, just because in the most recent study the average weight was 100kg and 15kg = 15%. It seems a bit bizarre how often that number is pushed.

It's so absurdly simplistic that I almost have to believe it's a good-will attempt to make it seem very simple for the masses, so they will "have a go". These are after all press-releases, not technical documents.

 

[Guzzler]

Very well put I thought. And just for the record, since you mention it, I don't recall ever seeing a post where you seem dogmatic or biased!

Yes Roy Taylor certainly comes across as though he thinks it's all very simple in his interviews. Like you I wondered if it's because he just wants to push the big message home and he's short on time, so I checked the latest version of the web page at Newcastle uni, wondering if, when allowed to be a lot more wordy, the message would be more cautious, nuanced or detail more caveats. Nope:

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/archive/2017/09/type2diabetesisreversible/

As a former scientist myself, this sits very unwell with me. Sometimes it seems like advertising, producing a glossy summary and ignoring all else.

I naturally have a nasty suspicious mind and have wondered if there is a reason why his interviews are so short. Is it that he is not being given a platform for his research or is it something more? Time will tell.

There is one more point that I would like to make, thousands upon thousands of people have had and are seeing great results with LCHF, results that are called 'not evidence based' or anecdotal. This site itself promotes a lowered carb approach and yet we who utilise this approach are called dogmatic and 'Born Again Low Carbers' a term I find highly offensive. I am a proponent of my approach not because I want to lose weight per se but to manage my bg/A1c and perhaps reduce the visceral fat around my organs and not to mention improve my chances of avoiding complications. It is, for now, working for me. Should I really stop posting about my success so far and suggesting to newcomers that this approach has worked for so many or is this always going to be risking the tag of being dogmatic? Whatever the answer, I shall carry on.

 

[Boo1979]

I think the link goes to a press release so will have been written by a press officer for that market - having worked in a night shelter for homeless kids where we got journalists from the NOW descending every Christmas asking for “shock horror stories about homelessness” I wwouldnt expect anything related to the press to be remotely nuanced!

 

[AdamJames]

I naturally have a nasty suspicious mind and have wondered if there is a reason why his interviews are so short. Is it that he is not being given a platform for his research or is it something more? Time will tell.

There is one more point that I would like to make, thousands upon thousands of people have had and are seeing great results with LCHF, results that are called 'not evidence based' or anecdotal. This site itself promotes a lowered carb approach and yet we who utilise this approach are called dogmatic and 'Born Again Low Carbers' a term I find highly offensive. I am a proponent of my approach not because I want to lose weight per se but to manage my bg/A1c and perhaps reduce the visceral fat around my organs and not to mention improve my chances of avoiding complications. It is, for now, working for me. Should I really stop posting about my success so far and suggesting to newcomers that this approach has worked for so many or is this always going to be risking the tag of being dogmatic? Whatever the answer, I shall carry on.

I think there's probably a whole lot of things happening and sensitivities I'm not even aware of! I don't read a lot of threads in this forum, skipping over many where the title doesn't grab me.

Whenever I see anyone posting about their experiences and results I always lap it up as real data (if their posts seem good and they've clearly been monitoring themselves, you know what I mean!), where the descriptions and real experiences are often worth well more than the numbers. I don't care what 'category' of approach it falls into, it's data and it's gold dust.

I've learned a lot about LCHF here and I think it's very very likely that's my future. The fact that it's not mainstream medical advice doesn't put me off it at all. In fact, just eating to my meter and trying to avoid spikes forces me down the LCHF route. It seems very sensible for someone who has a problem with carbs, it's almost like the clue is in the name!

I'd never head the expression 'Born Again Low Carbers!' It's this kind of thing I find really off-putting. Any taking sides, then always looking for evidence to back up the chosen side and doing-down evidence from another "side".

All information builds a picture and gives you an idea about your options. Taking sides is for football matches. Probably why I've never liked football!

 

[Boo1979]

[Quote This site itself promotes a lowered carb approach and yet we who utilise this approach are called dogmatic and 'Born Again Low Carbers' a term I find highly offensive. [/QUOTE]


The people I refer to as dogmatic are not the vast majority of people who follow a low carb diet ( which I also do) but those who put LCHF forward as the answer to every question and tell people whose experience doesnt match their assertion that it is because they are “doing it wrong”. Most people respectfully acknowledge that people’s dietary needs are very individual whereas dogma asserts that one size really does / should fit all

 

[Guzzler]

[Quote This site itself promotes a lowered carb approach and yet we who utilise this approach are called dogmatic and 'Born Again Low Carbers' a term I find highly offensive.

The people I refer to as dogmatic are not the vast majority of people who follow a low carb diet ( which I also do) but those who put LCHF forward as the answer to every question and tell people whose experience doesnt match their assertion that it is because they are “doing it wrong”. Most people respectfully acknowledge that people’s dietary needs are very individual whereas dogma asserts that one size really does / should fit all[/QUOTE]

I have not been a member here for very long but not once have I read anywhere on this site that some who see no change in their approach to LCHF are "doing it wrong". I have seen members who state that they are lowering their carb intake by having, for example, wholemeal this or that or fresh fruit juices etc etc. It is then pointed out that this type of thing is not low carb. For the most part, members suggest alternatives, however, I will admit that the word 'must' in terms of approach is perhaps going too far re giving up foods. Some people are just not very diplomatic, not just those who choose LCHF but across the board.
There are some people who bumble through life just like Boris Johnson, no lack of inteligence as such but a distinct lack of emotional inteligence.

 

[Boo1979]

I have seen people told they “ must” be doing it wrong in addition to people being told they “ must” eat / not eat a particular way.
Bumbling and unintentioned maybe but dogmatic and inappropriate nontheless

 

[Guzzler]

I have

Then the fault lies with that/those particular members, not with the LCHF approach.

 

[Boo1979]

Then the fault lies with that/those particular members, not with the LCHF approach.

I absolutely agree

 

[lindisfel]

I came to this late in life and had been having hypos after carb in the am and pm for years. I also had started to have fatty liver disease.
I expect those on this forum who have a particular view on LCHF to give me the science to back it up.
I have found far from dogmatism of a born again approach they invariably highlight the science of their approach without name calling.

To me now it is obvious, if I do not want the problems caused by hyperinsulinemia or high blood glucose the quickest way to get that result is to cut down on refined carbs.
We diabetics deny that knowledge at our peril.
D

 

[Guzzler]

I have seen people told they “ must” be doing it wrong in addition to people being told they “ must” eat / not eat a particular way.
Bumbling and unintentioned maybe but dogmatic and inappropriate nontheless

I have found generally that the people who are most dogmatic are those with the least amount of research with which to substantiate their claims but that is just my perception and my opinion.

 

[Tannith]

I've learned that attempting to put right misrepresentations like this is just going to wear me down; bulkbiker can keep churning them out forever it seems. All it takes is a flippant one-liner from him that takes him ten seconds to write and somebody else who cares about reality will need to spend hours putting it right. It's a losing task. I hope you don't get sucked in, but I appreciate you trying.

More importantly than this rubbish, I wish you all the best in your efforts

Thank you for your good wishes and for your advice not to get sucked in.

 

[ickihun]

So this radio presentation is pushing eat less and move more because ND was only started as an alternative to bariatric surgery. Because bariatric surgery has good remission rates. Due to less food giving an energy deficit.
End of.

I'm greedy I want bariatric surgery and the best diet for reducing insulin resistance.
That isn't fasting but 6-8 tiny eats along the day. Remission is achieved that way with bariatric surgery.
I bet with huge carb deficit in a majority.

 

[Tannith]

Thank you for your good wishes and for your advice not to get sucked in.

I think that when people say low cal diets don't work what they often mean is not that the initial diet didn't work. Mostly they imply that it did when they say that they later put the weight BACK on. So it must have come off on the low calorie diet in the first place! Their problem is with the maintenance diet that follows the initial weight loss diet. I myself have often lost weight to get into a dress for a wedding or a holiday, only to forget about dieting after the event, and then put the weight back on. This time I have a compelling reason to ensure I eat to my BMR after losing the initial weight. Otherwise I should get my fatty liver and fatty pancreas back.

 

[Guzzler]

So this radio presentation is pushing eat less and move more because ND was only started as an alternative to bariatric surgery. Because bariatric surgery has good remission rates. Due to less food giving an energy deficit.
End of.

I'm greedy I want bariatric surgery and the best diet for reducing insulin resistance.
That isn't fasting but 6-8 tiny eats along the day. Remission is achieved that way with bariatric surgery.
I bet with huge carb deficit in a majority.

Hi Ickihun, perhaps you can help me? I half remember that Prof. Taylor once said that as a bariatric surgeon (?) one of the major problems he faces is trying to operate on patients who have a lot of subcutaneous and visceral fat, that this is in itself a hindrance to swift surgery and can have poorer post op outcomes in terms of healing. Was it Taylor that said this or have I totally misremembered?

 

[ickihun]

We are all different so have different needs from a new diet.