I don't know his every word but the reason for ND was to find an op alternative. But have same fantastic success in remission. Evidence is constantly coming out for long term success but ND results a few years behind but not as successful, especially long term.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?
I don't know his every word but the reason for ND was to find an op alternative. But have same fantastic success in remission. Evidence is constantly coming out for long term success but ND results a few years behind but not as successful, especially long term.
I have the same view as a scientist and engineer. I am sceptical about some of the Prof's claims and degree of scientific research. His focus on calories shows a lack of understanding of how the body's metabolism works. The calorie value of food has little relationship to it's energy potential in the body - for example carbs and fats go thru a completely different process and some of fat calorie value is 'lost'. So this '800' calorie thing is very unscientific.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.
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?
I have the same view as a scientist and engineer. I am sceptical about some of the Prof's claims and degree of scientific research. His focus on calories shows a lack of understanding of how the body's metabolism works. The calorie value of food has little relationship to it's energy potential in the body - for example carbs and fats go thru a completely different process and some of fat calorie value is 'lost'. So this '800' calorie thing is very unscientific.
That would be one massive, horrendously difficult to control and eye-wateringly expensive to sponsor. If I recall correctly, the latest DIRECT Study was over £5m.
The stats would also be a nightmare and almost ccrtainly meaningless - too may uncontrolled and uncontrollable variables
All he was initially trying to prove was that a low calorie diet continued for long enough to get the fat off the liver and pancreas, as verified by his scanner, would result in reversal of diabetes. At least in those who had not had the T2 so long that their pancreatic fat had already killed their beta cells, or so many of them that complete reversal was no longer possible.The stats would also be a nightmare and almost ccrtainly meaningless - too may uncontrolled and uncontrollable variables
My comment was in regard to Adamjames suggested reseach not the Direct studyAll he was initially trying to prove was that a low calorie diet continued for long enough to get the fat off the liver and pancreas, as verified by his scanner, would result in reversal of diabetes. At least in those who had not had the T2 so long that their pancreatic fat had already killed their beta cells, or so many of them that complete reversal was no longer possible.
That is step one. Does it work?- Yes. Step 2 is does it continue to work as long as the person keeps the weight off? Answer - for one year at least, in many subjects, and apparently in one subject from and earlier trial, 10 years - Yes. Step 3 is to devise a support system capable of being administered in NHS Primary care that would ensure that most people were willing and able to keep to the maintenance diet to ensure that their pancreatic and liver fat stayed off and their diabetes stayed in remission, ideally for life.
Thanks, I wasn't sure at all.Guzzler, I haven't gone and checked Professor Taylor's qualifications, but I feel pretty certain he, himself, isn't a surgeon.
Thanks, I wasn't sure at all.
As someone else said, that was a press release - they're not known for being nuanced. In Roy Taylor's FAQ page, he does list the type of people who may have been diagnosed with 'type 2' but wouldn't benefit from the approach:-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.
Interesting thread! I did listen to the interview, thanks bulkbiker for posting link.
Shame the prof's "piece" was so short, I'd been getting a bit jealous of all those people saying they ate less and moved more and hey presto, a miracle, they all lost weight. There is no doubt in my mind that consuming less and moving more will have a positive effect and people will lose weight. I've been there there, done that, got the video even, now what?
I now cannot lose weight until I get down to what the professor is talking about, very low calories. I'm pleased others can be successful with what I consider the "easy peasy" bit.
One caller who I remembered was the guy who said he lost 4 stone and reversed his diabetes, I've done that on 2 occasions, fortunately without weight gain in the middle, so 8 stone overall, and haven't reversed my diabetes. The first 4 stone went when I stopped taking Rosiglitazone, that stopped when I was prescribed Gliclazide. The second 4 stone went when I changed to low carbs without increasing calorie intake by increasing fat. That stopped . . . . . . . who can tell why. It goes back to the same old story, we are all so very different.
BTW, day 4 of eating nothing but peppers, courgettes, leaks, cauliflower, broccoli, mushrooms, celery, and still waiting for my BG to behave. It will . . . . eventually. It did the last time I tried this ND thing. At least I can now baked them, "whizz" them in the Nutribullit or utilise my Christmas pressie from MIL . . . . a soup maker.
Belated Happy New Year to one and all.
Have you seen Jenny Ruhl's book "Diet 101 - the Truth about Low Carb Diets" ? (Diet here means weight loss diet as well as blood glucose diet.) She has struggled for years with her weight AND has been coping with and researching diabetes for years, being now over 70. She talks a lot about stalling and what to do about it. I haven't read those chapters as my problem is being under rather than over-weight, but I think she knows what she is talking about, from her own experience and also from that of the many people who have been in contact with her on the net. You may also be able to find much of what she has to say on her website:Interesting thread! I did listen to the interview, thanks bulkbiker for posting link.
Shame the prof's "piece" was so short, I'd been getting a bit jealous of all those people saying they ate less and moved more and hey presto, a miracle, they all lost weight. There is no doubt in my mind that consuming less and moving more will have a positive effect and people will lose weight. I've been there there, done that, got the video even, now what?
I now cannot lose weight until I get down to what the professor is talking about, very low calories. I'm pleased others can be successful with what I consider the "easy peasy" bit.
One caller who I remembered was the guy who said he lost 4 stone and reversed his diabetes, I've done that on 2 occasions, fortunately without weight gain in the middle, so 8 stone overall, and haven't reversed my diabetes. The first 4 stone went when I stopped taking Rosiglitazone, that stopped when I was prescribed Gliclazide. The second 4 stone went when I changed to low carbs without increasing calorie intake by increasing fat. That stopped . . . . . . . who can tell why. It goes back to the same old story, we are all so very different.
BTW, day 4 of eating nothing but peppers, courgettes, leaks, cauliflower, broccoli, mushrooms, celery, and still waiting for my BG to behave. It will . . . . eventually. It did the last time I tried this ND thing. At least I can now baked them, "whizz" them in the Nutribullit or utilise my Christmas pressie from MIL . . . . a soup maker.
Belated Happy New Year to one and all.
As someone else said, that was a press release - they're not known for being nuanced. In Roy Taylor's FAQ page, he does list the type of people who may have been diagnosed with 'type 2' but wouldn't benefit from the approach:-
Could it work for me?
This research is in “type 2 diabetes”, the usual common form of diabetes. There are some rare forms of diabetes which may appear to be type 2 diabetes:
a) Diabetes occurring after several attacks of pancreatitis is likely to be due to direct damage to the pancreas (known as “pancreatic diabetes”)
b) Secondly, people who are slim and are diagnosed with diabetes in their teens and twenties, with a very strong family history of diabetes, may have a genetic form (known as “monogenic diabetes”)
c) Thirdly, type 1 diabetes sometimes comes on slowly in adults, and these people usually require insulin therapy within a few years of diagnosis (“slow onset type 1”) None of these rare conditions will respond in the same way as the common, true type 2 diabetes.
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/media/wwwnclacuk/newcastlemagneticresonancecentre/files/2017 Diabetes reversal info.pdf
Thank-you SO much for posting this. I suspect I am LADA rather than T2 and I am very under-weight (BMI 16.5) but I did just wonder whether losing even more weight might resolve my bg problem. Now I know it wouldn't. I did email Prof. T asking him this question. He was kind enough to reply, but oddly he did not give the information above.c) Thirdly, type 1 diabetes sometimes comes on slowly in adults, and these people usually require insulin therapy within a few years of diagnosis (“slow onset type 1”) None of these rare conditions will respond in the same way as the common, true type 2 diabetes.
I have the same view as a scientist and engineer. I am sceptical about some of the Prof's claims and degree of scientific research. His focus on calories shows a lack of understanding of how the body's metabolism works. The calorie value of food has little relationship to it's energy potential in the body - for example carbs and fats go thru a completely different process and some of fat calorie value is 'lost'. So this '800' calorie thing is very unscientific.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?