• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Prof Taylor on the subject of Reversal.

Apologies for the confusion @Mbaker I meant that all roads converge on the issue of reversal being conditional upon maintaining your diet/lifestyle whatever that may be.
 
You make an excellent point wrt failure and lack of support/ knowledge etc, which is why a forum such as here is so important. I am all for everyone being able to make an informed choice with their eyes open and their pocket book closed.

Going back to the weight loss topic wrt reversal /remission. Personally I have lost a maximum 2 kg weight due to following Low Carb WOE and I have myself had a brief spell of remission but sadly now back on the meds and the diet. That 2 kg however dropped my midriff waistline by 5" so I wear braces now to save on buying a new wardrobe. I ain't proud!
 
For those scientific responses, most grateful and will consume over coming days.

But for a simple lad like me, it goes (mostly) like this.

*1) Eat poorly for many years, (aka SAD) and we 'Fill up' our bodies with the issues that present as T2
*2) Get Dx and continue on that path until...
*3) Take alternative actions.
*4) Resulting drainage of stored glucose, results in diminished Glucose / insulin intolerance issues
*5) Return to SAD, and the process simply begins again, most possible accelerated as we are already damaged.

So whatever type of wording we use, that old way of eating has sailed off into the sunset.
eat the SAD way once 'cured' if you wish, but expect the return, sooner then you think of the beast within..imho.

Whichever version of LCHF is chosen, it is seemingly more sustainable over many years for so many.
Dr Unwins cohorts perhaps.

happy those who choose other methods are successful, however would have preferred the LCHF to also have been studied in such depth and properly evaluated as in Liver scans etc,

As i understood it, the original debate was can the results of Bariatric surgery be replicated, without the surgery.
and yes..if people don't eat enough, it can..BUT can they replicate it, year after year..imo No.

Find it hard to incredible that such a way (LCHF) can exist, have so many managing this disease successfully using it,
yet is almost ignored in the preference to a diet that they last tried in 'Tenko'...imho.
 
I wish I could interview one of my practice GP’s. He had bariatric surgery a few years ago. He says it stops him from eating (so much) and he said he loved carbs,
 
If that is the case then why doesn't it also work the other way?

1. Reduction of glucose consumption.
2. Fat cells have enough capacity to cope.
3. Diabetes cured.

I think there has to be another step (maybe damage to beta cells) that makes the process irreversible, not to the extent of being able to cope with modern excesses, but at least to be able to have the diet of say the 1930's when much fewer people developed Type 2 diabetes.
 

In my view this is exactly what does happen. Or rather, this is what can happen, but only with enough motivation, some good fortune, and almost total glucose abstinence for a very long time. Perpetually treading water by eating as much glucose as the meter allows, doesn’t cut the mustard. In my opinion only, of course.

But yes, I do agree that a return to old habits would likely see the diabetes return more quickly than it first arose. For sure there is bound to be some metabolic scarring, as it were. My post was painting the picture with very broad strokes. I’m aware of course that the biochemistry is unimaginably complex. I’ve been studying nothing else, every single day, for three years solid, and I’ve still only just scratched the surface
 
bulkbiker said:
Who says it's irreversible though?
Click to expand...
Do you know of anyone who has successfully gone back to the sort of carb level that was normal before the increase in diabetes in the last few decades?
 
Mr_Pot said:
sort of carb level that was normal
Click to expand...

Is it "normal" though? That is the main question.. did we eat so many processed carbs in the 1930's ?

Our current SMD (standard modern diet) way of eating makes us sick.. why should being able to go back to eating in such a disordered way be looked upon as any measure of success?

I'd say it was crass stupidity to reverse a condition and then go back to what created it in the first place..
 
Seed oils don't help, as they can damage the mitochondria and diminish their ability to process glucose.
 
I said the level of carbs that were normal in the 1930's when diabetes wasn't so prevalent. Not the modern diet that that people had before they were diagnosed.
 
Mr_Pot said:
Do you know of anyone who has successfully gone back to the sort of carb level that was normal before the increase in diabetes in the last few decades?
Click to expand...
Does anyone know of any athletes that have regained the same performance as they had in the 30's? Time marches on, and so do we. This search for Eldorado is pointless. When the boffins solve the conundrum, then shout "yes please" but till then please donate to diabetes research and be thankfull that our ability to control better than our forebears were able to is a step in the right direction. My mother never had a bgl meter
 
Last edited:
From memory, @bulkbiker passed an OGTT not long ago? That's very impressive for someone who was previously diabetic. I'm reasonably confident I could pass one myself if I loaded up on carbs a few days prior to the test, but I have no desire to ever go there again so that's not gonna happen
 
I don't understand your point.
There is apparently a big increase in the incidence of Type 2 diabetes in recent decades.
If, instead of eating the modern diet, people ate the diet typical in the 1930's (which had quite a lot of carbs) then the theory is that they wouldn't have developed diabetes due to the lack of processed food, seed oils or whatever.
My assertion was, that there must be some irreversible change, like beta cell decay, that occurs, or we should be able to successfully revert to the 1930's diet that wouldn't have given us the diabetes in the first place. This was in response to @Jim Lahey 's three steps:
1. Overconsumption of excessive glucose leads to furious fat generation.
2. Fat cells run out of capacity to cope (in some this may be obese, in others it may not).
3. Diabetes.
And my comment that in addition to this there must be also be a permanent change if we are still susceptible to diabetes even if we now adopt a 1930's diet.
 
They can't go back to the diet of the 30's unless we also revert back to the old grains we ate for centuries. The new grains damage us. I hope someone can find the information on the new grains, from the 50's (which made the Chorley wood process possible) and insulin regulation damage. I can't find it now.
 
This is not only about amounts of grains eaten, it's also (mainly the problem in my opinion) the way grains have changed in the last 50 years.
 
lucylocket61 said:
Can I have some more information on this please?
Click to expand...

I'm afraid, as ever, I do not have any to hand. My knowledge, for better or worse, comes almost exclusively from books and podcasts. The internet is a seething cauldron of misinformation and misdirection, so I tend not to save links for future reference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…