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

Remission

Depends on your definition of remission. I use that choice on my avatar as it’s the closest available choice to how I consider myself. I really call myself ‘well controlled’. I do take Metformin which some would say doesn’t fit the criteria for remission, some allow it. Anyway I have maintained a non diabetic HbA1c for two years using Metformin and a low carb diet.
 
I have no idea how remission is defined. All I know is, after sweeping “lifestyle” changes including a new diet and the addition of regular exercise upon diagnosis, I dropped my A1c from over 100 down to 30 in 4 months, losing a lot of weight to attain a BMI of 22, and dropping all meds (including HBP meds) along the way. I have maintained this since April of last year.
 
Interestingly the lead GP for diabetes at my local “sister surgery” says that there is no such thing as remission as the condition is dietary controlled. The comment was made once they had read Debs leaflet.

(The good news is that they have agreed to leave the leaflet as is).

Like you, it is along the same lines that I have left my condition / status as Prediabetes under my avatar.
 
Tipetoo said:
In Australia it is not called that according to my GP and a CDE from Diabetes Queensland, I am classed as T2 - Under excellent control.

That is why I have not changed the text Type 2 (in remission!) under my avatar.
Click to expand...
That’s the way I see it. But I can see why the term remission might be appropriate.
 
Listlad said:
Interestingly the lead GP for diabetes at my local “sister surgery” says that there is no such thing as remission as the condition is dietary controlled.
Click to expand...
A alcoholic is never in remission but recovering, so the same for T2's perhaps as in "in recovery".
 
I define remission by asking; "would any blood test currently diagnose diabetes or other metabolic dysfunction, and are you taking diabetes medications?" If the answer to both questions is no, then remission/reversal/cure is achieved. To me it's that simple. The diet is irrelevant. We don't label people as diabetics because they're eating a diet that prevents them from getting diabetes. We just say that they do not have diabetes. I had a runny nose once but that doesn't mean I now have a cold for the rest of my life.

Impaired glucose tolerance is another matter, but that in itself is not deleterious to health so long as you don't eat glucose. And since there is no need to eat glucose...
 
6 years still in normal A1c range, so far diet controlled. However I have HBP which I take meds for, separate issue to diabetes, mind you.
 
At the moment - two years after reducing Hba1c below diabetic range, if I were to eat too many carbs I would have fairly normal reactions to it - one of which is to stash it away for use at some time in the future.
That is normal for me - I always used to put on weight so easily all my adult life. I spent about 4 decades trying to achieve a normal reaction to food when prompted by my doctors, because what worked - Atkins at 50 gm of carbs a day was always what worked, yet I was always told it was totally wrong to eat that way.
At least now I will never be handed another diet sheet which starts off with grain for breakfast.
 
Normal blood sugars (HbA1c 29-36) for the last four years, one year on metformin, three years without any medication.
 
Definitely depends on what you'd call remission. I've been down at pre-diabetic levels since early 2014 (see signature), but me & my GP just call it "well controlled". Currently LCHF diet only - stopped metformin in April 2017.

However - a different GP at the surgery said I "was at risk of diabetes" having seen my HbA1c in February this year! :***: Go figure!

Robbity
 
When this comes up some give their own definitions. In the UK the NHS has a code for remission and a status. I have been below 42 since circa Nov / Dec 2015 (official remission as below:)
20190821_125756.jpg
 
Jim Lahey said:
I define remission by asking; "would any blood test currently diagnose diabetes or other metabolic dysfunction, and are you taking diabetes medications?" If the answer to both questions is no, then remission/reversal/cure is achieved. To me it's that simple. The diet is irrelevant. We don't label people as diabetics because they're eating a diet that prevents them from getting diabetes. We just say that they do not have diabetes. I had a runny nose once but that doesn't mean I now have a cold for the rest of my life.

Impaired glucose tolerance is another matter, but that in itself is not deleterious to health so long as you don't eat glucose. And since there is no need to eat glucose...
Click to expand...

They are in remission due to severe carbohydrate restriction.

Can they pass the 75g glucose load test from a fasted state?
 
millenium said:
They are in remission due to severe carbohydrate restriction.

Can they pass the 75g glucose load test from a fasted state?
Click to expand...

Probably not, but that only matters if one believes that humans have a requirement to consume glucose. I personally do not believe this to be the case. Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) is not T2DM. T2DM is a symptom of the derangement caused by inappropriate management of the IGT. In theory many of us here were born with some level of IGT that would eventually catch up with us in adulthood, but that doesn't mean we were born diabetic.

Anyone is of course free to disagree, and is encouraged to take the view that works best for them.
 
millenium said:
They are in remission due to severe carbohydrate restriction.

Can they pass the 75g glucose load test from a fasted state?
Click to expand...

Hi @millenium,

I tend to agree with @Jim Lahey here. I think that some of us simply aren't made (genetically) for such a high amount of carbs. (I think I read somewhere (can't remember the site unfortunately, wished I had bookmarked it) that the split is about 50/50 -- Fifty percent can metabolize carbs without problems and the other fifty percent have problems with this). Does this make us diabetic per se? Or does it just mean that our metabolism isn't suited for the modern carb-rich diet?

Just to play devil's advocate:

Hypothetically -- if we had always eaten lower carb and had never had higher blood sugar levels, would we have been diagnosed diabetic? Would we tell someone eating this way for life without ever having had high blood sugar levels, that the only reason, they aren't diabetic, is because they don't consume lots of carbs?

Edited for grammar.
 
Last edited:
millenium said:
They are in remission due to severe carbohydrate restriction.

Can they pass the 75g glucose load test from a fasted state?
Click to expand...
What human (or animal) would purposefully put 15 teaspoons of sugar equivalent into their body. Should we pretend that this is normal, or should we redefine normal as the 22 teaspoons of sugar for the day (excluding carb sugars) in the "normal" Western diets.

At the beginning of the 1900's an average human had 1 packet of sugar for the year, now this is over 75.

It baffles me that we know the number 1 non elective surgery for children in the UK is tooth extraction, do we think sugar just behaves itself after this or is the major contributor to.......
 
Back
Top