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

Reverse Type 2 Diabetes with a LCHF diet. Is this a myth?

Yes I think was is my suspicion all along and the reason I asked the question, it's really why I don't really the term reversal or remission because I don't think it is quite the same thing as control. Anyway controlled diabetes is good and as VastiB rightly said it's preferable to high blood sugar and complications.
 
@Little Bird - whilst I tripped over to operational cure, according to this definition, almost a year ago, I won't adopt too many labels willingly.

I tend not to talk about how many Grammies of carb I may, or may not consume in any given day because what I do can be very divorced from what you, or anyone else, needs to do to be in a good place with their blood sugars.

Have you acquired blood glucose testing let yet?
 
An interesting piece, but I can vouch for the effectiveness of a Keto diet and intermittent fasting. It took me 55 years of bad eating habits to make me a T2D. It took me 3 weeks of Keto to come off my meds. The suggestion that I can in the forceable future go back to bad eating habits and my body will respond in the same way it did when I was a teenager is just unrealistic.
Diabetes is one of about 22 metabolic disorders arising from long term high levels of insulin in the body. If you concentrate simply on reversing the diabetes your missing the real object of the exercise, which is to reduce insulin levels for better all round health, not just T2D. This can only be done by reducing processed carbs, and giving the body a long rest between meals.
People can rubbish LCHF and Keto or wholefood vegan with supplements, but as far as I can see they are the only real strategy that exists to restore your health and put T2D into remission.
 
Hi thanks for your response. It was never my intention to rubbish LCHF or any other kind of diet. I know that such have produced excellent results for countless people. My question was more about control as opposed to reversal rtf I find it interesting that you have mentioned vegan diets and fasting as strategies, I've not heard much about these with regards to diabetes could you say more on these subjects?
 
I don't advocate vegan diets because the body has difficulty using the protein and other nutrients from carb based foods. In addition, you need to supplement the B vitamins, particularly B1 and B12 as well as iron and other essential minerals. Vegans also have difficulty getting the necessary fats a body need from plants.
But I understand the moral argument over animal cruelty and it is possible to be on a low carb whole food vegan diet, although it is a lot harder than it is for a meat eater
 
I knew that high carb was bad for me back in my early 20s - but over the decades I have been screamed at, insulted, even threatened and handed lots of printouts for diets which start of with Breakfast: porridge or cereal - I used them to start a barbecue the day after diagnosis.
These days I could eat more carbs than the 40 gm per day I set as maximum, and my blood glucose would not go very high for a few days - but my weight would go up rapidly, I would start to feel lethargic and in a few months I'd be unable to wear the clothes I have shrunk down into, unable to stay awake in the evenings and turning down work on knitting machines as I'd have lost the strength and energy I regained over the last few years.
Eating low carb is my natural state. It always has been. Low fat, low calorie, high carb just made me old before my time and very overweight.
 
You might like to read about Professor Roy Taylor's research into 'reversing' type 2 diabetes.
https://www.ncl.ac.uk/magres/research/diabetes/reversal/#publicinformation

He found that substantial weight loss could lead to a 'reversal' of diabetes in some people who definitely had type 2 diabetes. (Some people who are labelled as type 2 are not). Although his own research was done using diet shakes and a very low calorie diet, he states:-
  • The essential point is that substantial weight loss must be achieved. The time course of weight loss is much less important. It is a simple fact that the fat stored in the wrong parts of the body (inside the liver and pancreas) is used up first when the body has to rely upon its own stores of fat to burn. Any pattern of eating which brings about substantial weight loss over a period of time will be effective. Different approaches suit different individuals best.
  • It is also very important to emphasise that sustainability of weight loss is the most important thing to ensure that diabetes stays away after the initial weight loss.
  • https://www.ncl.ac.uk/media/wwwncla...ecentre/files/2018 Diabetes reversal info.pdf
Many people who control their blood glucose with LCHF report accompanying weight loss. This could lead to loss of pancreatic fat and in some people this could allow them to eat a carbohydrate meal without getting abnormal glucose levels as long as they maintain their weight-loss. In this case you could say they have 'reversed' their diabetes, although it is likely to return if they regain the weight.

However, people may have type 2 diabetes for many years before being diagnosed. This may damage the beta cells so much that they do not recover even when pancreatic fat is lost through weight-loss. In this case, weight-loss would not lead to 'reversal' of diabetes, although using LCHF could be used to control blood glucose levels.

Overall, it would be fair to say that IF you genuinely have type 2 diabetes and IF you haven't had the condition for very long and IF you lose enough weight by whatever means you find effective and IF you maintain your weight-loss then it could be argued that you may reverse your diabetes enough to get normal blood glucose levels after eating a meal containing carbohydrate.
 
It must be pointed out that although the Newcasrle Diet that Prof Taylor used certainly did have encouraging results, there was a relatively low success rate. It was around 46% from what I remember, so it is not a quick fix for everybody. It is also important that people taking up this type of diet work with their GPs etc and are monitored during the periond of diet. The solutions to controlling weight after the trisl period is also something that has not been fully resolved yet, and there are extended trials being conducted now to find better answers to these connundrums. Reversal has indeed been observed in a few but the long term position is still being worked on.

Discussing the ND plan is not answering the OP query which was specifically on LCHF, so is off topic.
 
So the ND can 'reverse' T2 if significant weight loss is achieved. We have members here who have had similar 'reversals' with LCHF but with little or no weight loss. Or are we going to say that these people weren't really diabetic in the first place just to promote the ND and those ghastly fake food shakes?
 
Oldvatr said:
Discussing the ND plan is not answering the OP query which was specifically on LCHF, so is off topic.
Click to expand...
It was on topic because I was pointing out that weight-loss through LCHF diet could result in diabetes 'reversal'. (Admittedly, there was a fair amount of accompanying background but I felt that was necessary for someone who was new to diabetes.)
 
So, are you saying that people used LCHF for a while, lost no weight, and then when they tried eating carbs again they got normal post-prandial blood glucose levels?

The food shakes are not necessary - to repeat Prof Taylor's statement, "Any pattern of eating which brings about substantial weight loss over a period of time will be effective. Different approaches suit different individuals best."
 
Hi Dark Horse, now that really is very interesting. The dietary guidelines for life after the shakes part of the diet does include some carbs. It says avoid things like biscuits and cakes and limit starchy carbs like rice and that bulgar chickpea flour etc. are better than rice and wheat. if you could eat those foods without being adversely affected then I think that would be a true reversal.

It seems from some of the replies posted hear that some people assumed I meant that reversal would mean that you could go back to eating chips, chocolate cake and the like but that was never what I meant. These foods are unhealthy for everyone, not just diabetics. The return to normal, reduced energy diet, which contains some high fibre carbs, is what I would describe as normal food and what I was talking about in my original post.

Its true that the reversal success rate was less than half, but the study reports that even those who did not reverse their diabetes still lowered their blood sugars. That is particularly interesting because it suggests reversal is a distinct thing (whatever the precise definition) from blood sugar reduction and/control.

I have no idea what the statistics say but having read many testimonials it seems that the true power of low carb diets is in controlling blood sugars rather than reversing diabetes. As I have said repeatedly that can only be a good thing, particularly for those whose diabetes is not reversible it is life enhancing and life saving! But is it reversal like that described in the ND diet?
 
I don't believe anyone can go back to their previous eating habits and maintain reversal. Professor Taylor handpicked his subjects for his trial, people who had a lot of weight to lose and people who had probably never dieted before. The reason they maintain reversal for a while is that their new diet, even with carbs is a whole lot better than their previous one. True reversal would mean they could eat as before, but of course that would mean gaining the lost weight because they are still carb intolerant to a degree, just not as carb intolerant as some of us here. What about the rest of us? Those who have dieted for 30 years plus and then find despite eating a low cal diet the weight just keeps piling on?

Professor Taylor is in essence blaming the patient for an underlying condition of carb intolerance. He is saying 'lose weight and you can get reversal'. So if the patient can't keep the weight off (and that's the hard bit) it's all their own silly fault, they are weak. Do you know how it feels to be told that you are a failure and that IR is all your own fault? LCHF gives a freedom from feeling like that. It gives you the energy to walk and work. I eat more than twice the calories I used to eat yet I don't gain weight. No more starving my body into submission, no more self loathing, no more staying away from the doctor's surgery because I didn't want another lecture when I was already doing my utmost to lose weight, no more feelings of hunger all day long, no more recurrent chest infections.

The way for true healing of the whole body (which is much more important than T2 'reversal' in my book) is to nurture it with good nutrition, not to starve an already broken body.
 
I don't mean to speak for someone else but I think the message is that it is the loss of fat deposits from the liver and pancreas is responsible for the change in blood sugar levels rather than overall weight loss.
 
The problem I see with using terms like reversal or remission is that if one does enter the happy state where carbs are on the menu again, then human nature has a habit of taking one's eye off the ball, and again scoring an own goal. So most of the ND dieters I suspect were monitored by HCP's while attending the sessions, but probably did not invest in testing kits of their own and probably stopped tracking their blood sugars. Thus, if there is any relapse, it will most probably be missed until it becomes significant again,

By stating that I am well controlled, that triggers in my mind the need to continue taking steps to maintain the low bgl results, and gives me incentive to test myself. It also holds me back from overindulgance, and may curtail gluttony (??????!) a little.
 
Last edited:
You don't have to be overweight to develop diabetes. You can be thin and active but still have liver and pancreatic fat. I believe that new research avenues are looking into why some people deposit it here differently to others. I think your right about healing being about nutrition. I don't think anyone really believes eating stodgy sugary food is healthy, but good nutrition does mean different things to different people. There is no one size fits all.
 
You don't have to be overweight to develop diabetes. You can be thin and active but still have liver and pancreatic fat. I believe that new research avenues are looking into why some people deposit it here differently to others. I think your right about healing being about nutrition. I don't think anyone really believes eating stodgy sugary food is healthy, but good nutrition does mean different things to different people. There is no one size fits all.
 
And 800 cals cannot provide good nutrition.
 
@Little Bird - The harsh reality is that people will eulogise about what has worked for them. It tends to be what people do. A further reality, for quite a few is, at diagnosis, they "didn't have any symptoms, and felt just fine", only to find as their health (as evidenced by clinical data) improved, they realise that whilst they hadn't had any marked symptoms, they began to feel better, showing they had likely been a bit under par for a while. Such can be the nature of slow developing conditions.

Thereafter, based in feeling, coupled with better health markers, they tend to continue on their way of eating.

Obviously, that doesn't cover everyone. We also have those who achieve, what for them is the Holy Grail of blood glucose numbers, and declare themselves off to resume their old life where they left off. For all we know of them, they may be thriving in their newly healthier state, or they may be slipping a bit. Some of those members will come back again and re-enter what I often refer to as the revolving door, and start again, but until there are large scale trials done on this we'll really never know.

Long terms lifestyle trials are notoriously difficult to run, because so much can change over time, in the lives of the participants, but there are the seeds of really meaningful data out there, which hopefully will be published one day in the foreseeable future.

As yet, I haven't read about anything, aside from reading and research, you might have done since your diagnosis. If the answer is something, then I do hope it's working for you. If the answer is nothing, then I'd urge you to choose to do something - whatever you feel you can commit to. Not what me or anyone else feels they can commit to..
 
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.…