Prof Taylor on BBC4 soon this lunchtime

[Alexandra100]

You & Yours NOW!

 

[Tannith]

I've missed it. Will someone who saw it please tell us what he said?

 

[bulkbiker]

Eat less move more just about sums it up...how original..!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09k0nch#play
He starts about minute 28.00

 

[Alexandra100]

I've missed it. Will someone who saw it please tell us what he said?

In my rush I didn't make it totally clear that this was on Radio 4, not television. Sorry!

The interview was regrettably short. I could have done with more of Prof T and less of the vox pop "How I did/didn't manage to diet". He emphasised that the strategies for getting it off and keeping it off are different, almost opposed, and that keeping it off is the harder of the two. For getting it off, he does not recommend exercise DURING the drastic dieting phase, but very much recommends it AFTERWARDS. He sees part of the value of the liquid diet as reducing choice and uncertainty. He stressed that you can have a "normal" BMI and still need the diet, as we are all different and have different levels of fatness that we can tolerate. As an under-weight pre-pre-diabetic I was disappointed that there was nothing here for me, as he ended by referring to some research in America showing that women with a "normal" BMI (of I think 24) were twice as likely to develop problems as women with a BMI two points below that threshold at 22, so you can have a "normal" BMI and still benefit from losing weight. As my BMI is currently about 16 I did not find this addressed the dilemma of the truly skinny with high blood glucose levels.

 

[AdamJames]

Eat less move more just about sums it up...how original..!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09k0nch#play
He starts about minute 28.00

Neither "eat less" (restrict calories), nor "eat fat and protein" (VLCHF) are original. They both have been known to get good results for a very very very long time. Neither approach should be idolised nor mocked.

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-history.html

It's interesting how the wheel seems to keep turning. A diabetic recipe book from 20 years ago would outrage you, but one I saw from about 100 years ago all boiled down to LCHF.

One thing I didn't like about the interview is how he talks with such certainty, with no mention of the exceptions. That's a lesson all scientists seem determined not to learn: we only ever know a bit of the picture, and our current understanding will always change a few years down the line.

 

[bulkbiker]

Neither "eat less" (restrict calories), nor "eat fat and protein" (VLCHF) are original. They both have been known to get good results for a very very very long time.

Eat less has got very good results ... really?
As a long term strategy it sucks and in more than 46.5% fails doesn't it?

 

[Guzzler]

In my rush I didn't make it totally clear that this was on Radio 4, not television. Sorry!

The interview was regrettably short. I could have done with more of Prof T and less of the vox pop "How I did/didn't manage to diet". He emphasised that the strategies for getting it off and keeping it off are different, almost opposed, and that keeping it off is the harder of the two. For getting it off, he does not recommend exercise DURING the drastic dieting phase, but very much recommends it AFTERWARDS. He sees part of the value of the liquid diet as reducing choice and uncertainty. He stressed that you can have a "normal" BMI and still need the diet, as we are all different and have different levels of fatness that we can tolerate. As an under-weight pre-pre-diabetic I was disappointed that there was nothing here for me, as he ended by referring to some research in America showing that women with a "normal" BMI (of I think 24) were twice as likely to develop problems as women with a BMI two points below that threshold at 22, so you can have a "normal" BMI and still benefit from losing weight. As my BMI is currently about 16 I did not find this addressed the dilemma of the truly skinny with high blood glucose levels.

I have not come across the term 'pre-pre-diabetic' or was this a typo?

 

[Sue192]

Grrr. 'Eat less, move more' is the Wail Online/Daily Wail mantra trotted out by keyboard warriors (along with the usual insults). While it undoubtedly has common sense behind it, the whole ethos of losing weight/being overweight/struggling to maintain weight/effect on diabetes etc is immensely more complicated. If that mantra worked for everyone, then a whole industry centred around making money from people who lose or struggle to lose weight, would have been wiped out years ago and we'd all be Perfect..... Sadly, from the above descriptions, it sounds as if this interview has been 'infected' by media ignorance or dancing to one tune, which is a shame as it would have been nice to have given him the whole programme.

 

[AdamJames]

Eat less has got very good results ... really?
As a long term strategy it sucks and in more than 46.5% fails doesn't it?

Again, word play and confirmation bias.

You don't know what the long term results are, so you don't know it sucks. You've said yourself you'll wait to see what the long term results are, but apparently you aren't, in fact, going to do that.

Do you have any similar concerns about the long-term success and safety of VLCHF? Do you hold that approach to the same high standards?

I didn't actually use the words "very good results", but you know, for a disease that can have such devastating consequences, to keep having a pop at one approach which *may* work for a huge number of people - possibly around half is pretty disgusting. As you know very well, the results show that if you can afford to lose a lot of body weight and haven't been diabetic for a great many years, the chances of weight loss having a great benefit are well over the percentage you quote. Even if you want to use the stats you quote, it's a great success rate. Heck even if it only worked for 10% of people, it's something worth talking about, and to mock something that offers such hope to some people at every. available. opportunity. is frankly perverse.

Clearly you have a favourite punch-bag, and every time it's mentioned you will focus on the worst. There are better punch bags to have in life, such as taking aim at confirmation bias and prejudice.

 

[Alexandra100]

I have not come across the term 'pre-pre-diabetic' or was this a typo?

The term pre-pre-diabetic is my attempt to say that my last A1c was 41 ie one point better than pre-diabetes status in the UK. I also sometimes say to people in the general population that I have a problem with my blood glucose, or that I am going in the direction of diabetes. Any suggestions for a clearer way to express this would be appreciated! In fact I agree with the people who say that the categories "diabetic", "pre-diabetic" etc are fairly meaningless, especially as the cutoff points are different in different countries. I go with Dr Bernstein - what matters is to get one's blood glucose down as near normal as possible. In my case, given that over years my weight has fallen as my bg has risen, I suspect I may be pre-LADA, if such a category exists.

 

[Guzzler]

The term pre-pre-diabetic is my attempt to say that my last A1c was 41 ie one point better than pre-diabetes status in the UK. I also sometimes say to people in the general population that I have a problem with my blood glucose, or that I am going in the direction of diabetes. Any suggestions for a clearer way to express this would be appreciated! In fact I agree with the people who say that the categories "diabetic", "pre-diabetic" etc are fairly meaningless, especially as the cutoff points are different in different countries. I go with Dr Bernstein - what matters is to get one's blood glucose down as near normal as possible. In my case, given that over years my weight has fallen as my bg has risen, I suspect I may be pre-LADA, if such a category exists.

I asked a civil question for clarification only. I have no suggestions as to how you might express it differently.

 

[Alexandra100]

One thing I didn't like about the interview is how he talks with such certainty, with no mention of the exceptions. That's a lesson all scientists seem determined not to learn: we only ever know a bit of the picture, and our current understanding will always change a few years down the line.

I totally agree, except I'd add in "many / most health professionals". However I did once have a cardiologist who truly approached our relationship as a collaboration. Sadly he seems now to have quit the NHS for the private sector.

To be fair to Prof T it was a very brief interview, not much scope for ifs and buts, and the scope of the phone-in was weight loss in general rather than diabetes. Sadly, several diabetics did call in, but none of them seemed to have heard of Low Carb. One was so muddled, he said that after researching the topic he did not even know whether he should be eating sugar. Surely everyone including the NHS advises against sugar, though of course they do confuse the issue by recommending fruit.

 

[Alexandra100]

I asked a civil question for clarification only. I have no suggestions as to how you might express it differently.

Oh dear, did my reply sound as if I thought it was an UN-civil question? I thought it was a perfectly reasonable one, and was pleased to have the opportunity to explain myself. I really do struggle to know how to get my situation across to friends and acquaintances.

 

[lindisfel]

In my rush I didn't make it totally clear that this was on Radio 4, not television. Sorry!

The interview was regrettably short. I could have done with more of Prof T and less of the vox pop "How I did/didn't manage to diet". He emphasised that the strategies for getting it off and keeping it off are different, almost opposed, and that keeping it off is the harder of the two. For getting it off, he does not recommend exercise DURING the drastic dieting phase, but very much recommends it AFTERWARDS. He sees part of the value of the liquid diet as reducing choice and uncertainty. He stressed that you can have a "normal" BMI and still need the diet, as we are all different and have different levels of fatness that we can tolerate. As an under-weight pre-pre-diabetic I was disappointed that there was nothing here for me, as he ended by referring to some research in America showing that women with a "normal" BMI (of I think 24) were twice as likely to develop problems as women with a BMI two points below that threshold at 22, so you can have a "normal" BMI and still benefit from losing weight. As my BMI is currently about 16 I did not find this addressed the dilemma of the truly skinny with high blood glucose levels.

I began to wonder after what he said, can those with anorexia have diabetes? He seemed to indicate however low our bmi is, T2D is caused by visceral fat around internal organs. That is an hard pill to swallow when ones bmi is low.
I would have thought R.H. is blood glucose anomaly that disproves the rule?
D.

 

[Alexandra100]

I began to wonder after what he said, can those with anorexia have diabetes? He seemed to indicate however low our bmi is, T2D is caused by visceral fat around internal organs. That is an hard pill to swallow when ones bmi is low.
I would have thought R.H. is blood glucose anomaly that disproves the rule?
D.

Personally, I doubt he thinks this. Rather, his research has focussed on helping over-weight people with diabetes and the plight of the minority with diabetes who are truly under-weight does not interest him. As far as I can see, all research projects use over-weight and/or obese people. I suppose under-weight people with high bg are a very diverse lot, including those who are T2 and those who are mis-diagnosed T1, also those who are thin due to other health problems. I can see that using them for research would be complicated. At the same time it does seem to me that a lot of research is partially invalidated, as it is not clear whether the results were obtained due to weight loss or due to the particular diet used.

 

[Guzzler]

Oh dear, did my reply sound as if I thought it was an UN-civil question? I thought it was a perfectly reasonable one, and was pleased to have the opportunity to explain myself. I really do struggle to know how to get my situation across to friends and acquaintances.

Perhaps I misread your tone. It is often the case that tone does not come across well in text. No problem.

 

[ringi]

as it is not clear whether the results were obtained due to weight loss or due to the particular diet used.

So what, the only interesting research question for the NHS is:

If we get GPs to do X, or tell people Y, will it reduce long-term costs and result in better health outcomes?​

 

[AdamJames]

I began to wonder after what he said, can those with anorexia have diabetes? He seemed to indicate however low our bmi is, T2D is caused by visceral fat around internal organs. That is an hard pill to swallow when ones bmi is low.
I would have thought R.H. is blood glucose anomaly that disproves the rule?
D.

It was actually his response to the question "what about thin people with T2" that made me write that I thought he talked with too much certainty and should have mentioned the exceptions, PLUS the fact it doesn't work for everyone!

His answer was that T2 means your body is carrying too much fat for it to cope with, even if you are a thin T2. This totally ignores the fact that T2 is just *one* health issue. I mean, your body *may* have too much fat, which pushes you over to T2, but you still don't have *enough* fat to be healthy.

I sort of go along with:

To be fair to Prof T it was a very brief interview, not much scope for ifs and buts

as an explanation / excuse. But I also wish as someone rather high-profile, and who is probably only going to become even higher profile in the coming years, he makes more effort to get across that (a) Not everyone can safely do this, (b) Even for many who can, it won't work, and (c) The correlation between visceral fat and Type 2 is not necessarily best seen as simple cause-and-effect.

 

[LittleGreyCat]

Eat less has got very good results ... really?
As a long term strategy it sucks and in more than 46.5% fails doesn't it?

I think the main complaint is that this is presented as a simple solution.
What is your problem? Just eat less and exercise more.

I am hoping to force my weight down again after it shot up over the holidays.
I didn't eat that much more, just some carby treats.
Now I will have to cut right back on what I eat to get the pounds off again.

 

[bulkbiker]

You don't know what the long term results are, so you don't know it sucks. You've said yourself you'll wait to see what the long term results are, but apparently you aren't, in fact, going to do that.

As I have said before calorie restriction diets have been practised for many years and have a failure rate of probably more than 90%. I think its a shame that any scepticism concerning Prof Taylor's approach seems to upset you. I'm not sure why it does.