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

Review of Prof. Taylor's Study in Medical Economics

Don't forget the DiRECT study was sponsored.................................
 
Also dont forget that high pofile advocates of ALL dietary regimes debated on this site report that weight loss stalls after impressive initial losses. Its interesting to see LCHF advocates looking to find a 800 cal varient in order to try and lose those stubborn last couple of stone and ND advocates looking at LC (HF) in order to sustain losses - different but complimentary ways of skinning the same proverbial cat??...
 
Last edited:
bulkbiker said:
Again we agree... I know that limiting calories does not work for me in the long term and Prof Taylor says that calories need to be restricted forever after finishing the 800 cal part of the ND. So you'll get slowing BMR's and needing to cut cals further to maintain the lost weight .. it's the same old vicious circle that we have seen so often before. Very telling in my humble opinion that he said it is not the content of the food but the amount... therein lies his problem. But this is getting boring so I'll just shut up and clear off. Happy new year all!
Click to expand...
bulkbiker said:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)33102-1/fulltext
Click to expand...
Thank you
 
AdamJames said:
Please re-read what I wrote. I was trying to be helpful, passing on the real news that some normal-weight people have tried weight loss and it did work. I was very also careful to point out that it's only worth trying if it's safe to do so for other reasons. I have never once written flippantly "why not give weight loss a go", they question you quote is not my question and is out of context. I've read many posts in this forum saying that the Newcastle studies don't apply to them, and, just as I like it when people give me information when I may be missing something, I think it's appropriate to let people know, in case they've missed it, that this thing can get results for normal weight people.
Click to expand...




I read your post & I quoted the part of your post to which I was responding. I paraphrased in my comments & for that I apologise.

I was simply pointing out one or two reasons why thin people (not necessarily dangerously thin) may not want to attempt this diet. More power to Dr Mosely & Mr Doughty (I'm familiar with both cases) but I'd wager they'd feel differently about a drop in oestrogen than I do.
 
bulkbiker said:
Which so far as I know he has never claimed either..
Do you have some connection with the study?
You seem very sensitive to any observations that are not completely supportive.
Click to expand...
You selected out half my sentence. which continued "or reversal as he calls it" Whatever you like to call it- remission/reversal/cure, this is not the place to argue about semantics. My point was that Taylor was not blaming people for getting T2 at all, his research was aimed at showing us how to get rid of it/stop it progressing/restore our pancreatic cells to normal. Many people with T2 can get rid of it (though obviously not the genetic propensity to it if they later put on whatever is, for them, too much weight ie reach their personal fat threshold. It doesn't work, as you would expect, for people who have had type 2 so long that their beta cells are already too badly damaged to be revived, or dead. I don't know what proportion of T2s are in this latter category. But if you approach all newly diagnosed people and offer them the option of supported weight loss and maintenance, T2 could even become a thing of the past. There were no THIN diabetics in the Direct study but there were in the earlier study apparently. They had to lose very little weight to get to their personal fat threshold.
 
PFT is but a hypothesis but it is one that resonates with me. Just as we have genes that result in us being blonde, brown eyed with big feet then why not a gene or sequence of genes that dictates our rotundity (is that even a word?).

On another thread we were asked what was the most important thing we have learned in our journey with T2. I thought long and hard about that one and my answer was that T2 was not my fault. My second choice was that we are all different which obviously leads on to the fact that just as we all have different reactions to our T2 then we need different approaches. Whatever works for us at a given time is great but the more tools we have then the more chances we have to control this thing.

If ND is successful for some then hey! I'm all for it but it has to be said that if one fails on ND that is not a fault that the participant should carry.
 
I wish you all the best for a happy, healthy New Year:)
 
Safi said:
I read your post & I quoted the part of your post to which I was responding. I paraphrased in my comments & for that I apologise.

I was simply pointing out one or two reasons why thin people (not necessarily dangerously thin) may not want to attempt this diet. More power to Dr Mosely & Mr Doughty (I'm familiar with both cases) but I'd wager they'd feel differently about a drop in oestrogen than I do.
Click to expand...

And I probably didn't interpret the reasons behind your post properly :) I'll accept your apology if you'll accept mine. I thought you were sort of saying "that's easy for you to say!" But now that *I* re-read *your* post it's nothing like I remember thinking at the time.

I don't presume anything that works for one person would work for another. It's simply that on many occasions I've read people say that the idea of weight loss isn't relevant to them simply because they are "not fat", and I wonder if they've read accounts like Richard Doughty's. I wouldn't want anyone to overlook something that could work for them. I hadn't realised the thing about oestrogen!
 
Back
Top