starting newcastle diet on 2nd jan

As I said in my earlier post Choco the Newcastle Study used the Optifast diet plan which is low calorie not low carb.
The Tesco drinks obviously are higher still in carbs than the Optifast Plan drinks and at 35g each thats what 105grams of carbs before you add in any veg.

There is no question that a very low calorie diet works it always has done, there not new I used one myself in the 1980's prior to a holiday abroad and lost over a stone in a couple of weeks, the problem was as soon as I stopped I went back to my usual eating and drinking habits and the weight went straight back on plus a bit more which I believe is quite common with this type of starvation diet.

Anyone doing this diet must make lifestyle changes after they finish or they will put the weight straight back on, and I'm not trying to talk anyone out of doing it but real changes have to be made for the rest of your lives for this to make a real difference.

I get the idea that some are viewing it as a magic bullet that will cure their diabetes and it isn't and it wont. And dont forget the Newcastle Study used just 11 people, so results are hardly going to be conclusive one way or the other are they?

That said, good luck to those going for it :thumbup:

Hi. Carbs -short for carbohydrates - are a class of food Protein and fats are other classes of food.
They dont relate directly to calories. For example sugar is high in carbs and high in calories but cheese is low in carbs but high in calories.
As far as I know the number of grams of carb shown on the back of packets is not much use unless you are following an Atkins type diet where you need to restrict your carbohydrate intake but are not restricting calories so much.
The diet we are following is a low calorie diet. Calories are a unit of energy so it does not relate to the weight of carbohydrate.

Well said, Geordie.

I am not having the dramatic results you have had with your BG's, but being type 1.5 I am not surprised. My doctor has said that there is probably not much I can do to halt the disease, but if I can lose weight, exercise and keep as healthy as possible and take as few meds as possible that can only help to prevent me getting all the complications that go along with diabetes.

If all this diet does is teach me that I can live with out snacking in between meals and I can control my food intake rather than have it control me I will be over the moon.

beancounter said:

If all this diet does is teach me that I can live with out snacking in between meals and I can control my food intake rather than have it control me I will be over the moon.

Click to expand...

geordie90 said:

thats exactly the point we may not be able to stop the disease but if we can make some changes then we can slow down the progression and stay much healthier longer which can only be a good thing

Click to expand...

That's what I meant. Would cutting out the snacking in between meals have the same effect without having to take shakes as meal replacements? Is it not about making changes to our eating habits and re-educating ourselves (says me that has no willpower or stamina to do either :lol: )

bluehils said:

As far as I know the number of grams of carb shown on the back of packets is not much use unless you are following an Atkins type diet where you need to restrict your carbohydrate intake but are not restricting calories so much.

Click to expand...

Are you aware of the role carbohydrates play bluehils, every gram of carbohydrate you eat turns 100% to glucose in your intestines and is absorbed into your blood which in turn raises your blood glucose the information on food packets is therefore of vital importance to a diabetic regardless of whether they diet or not




Edited to remove comment to mods - my mistake

bluehils said:

As far as I know the number of grams of carb shown on the back of packets is not much use unless you are following an Atkins type diet where you need to restrict your carbohydrate intake but are not restricting calories so much.

Click to expand...

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

...or unless you are a diabetic that wants to control their blood sugars and minimise the chance of future complications.

how about we just stick to the topic of conversation the newcastle study, instead of hijacking somebodys thread with the the age old carb debate.

louiseb said:

how about we just stick to the topic of conversation the newcastle study, instead of hijacking somebodys thread with the the age old carb debate.

Click to expand...

Understand your point, but I think it's right to point out and comment on any posts that could mislead people, particularly new members, as Borofergie correctly did. By the way, just because something is "age old", it doesn't mean it isn't relevant - look at me! :lol:

Marina, one of the reasons that I'm sticking to my eggs for breakfast - less than 1g carb per egg - is to keep the carb count a bit lower. They fill me up and I like them! It will mean my fat intake will be higher than the Optifast dieters, though (about 8g) so that too will be interesting.

I'm almost always in ketosis on my usual diet unless I drink alcohol. Then the body stops burning fat and runs on alcohol - just like a Jeep! :lol: I think the carb level below which a person goes into ketosis can vary with the individual. I've had signs of ketosis at about 50g carb before now. But I do have a lot of fat to burn. My maintenance calorie intake is supposed to be around 2000 per day! :shock:

250ml of skimmed milk has approx. 11g carb (according to the Collins book). So if you mix the Slimfast (which is the one you got from Tesco, I think) with water instead of milk you can bring each shake down to 24g carb. If I remember rightly either Patch or Bowell (Bob) did that and found them quite acceptable.

So I shall be having (say) 65g carb between breakfast eggs plus two replacement meals, with a big heap of gorgeous low-carb veg for my evening meal. Probably no more than 100g carb max in a day. As for calcium - make sure you eat broccoli every day, or take a calcium supplement. You excrete the excess, as far as I know. Anyway, 8 weeks won't hurt.

As for calories - egg breakfast say 200; shake made with 250ml water, 150 cal x 2 = 300 cal. Big heap of veg, say 200cal (there's an awful lot of veg in 200 cal's worth, if you pick the right ones). So you end up with a daily total of 100g carb and 700 calories.

You can tell how many years I spent counting calories, can't you? :lol:

As many of you know, I'm usually a very low carb dieter, it suits me and I lose weight on it very well, as long as I keep off the wine :lol: . It will be interesting to see if I can double my carbohydrate intake and still lose weight by restricting the calories. My normal calorie intake is between 1300 and 1800 per day.

My BG readings are usually only just above the non-diabetic range, and my usual HbA1cs are in the 5s. 5.2 in September. December was complicated by steroids, antibiotics and a couple of infections, and was 6.0. It will be interesting to see what a low-cal but higher carb diet does to that.

At the moment I have 5 weeks supplies in. Whether I do the final 3 weeks will very much depend on the results I get.

Viv 8)

PS I don't mean to start debating carbs, Louiseb - sorry if it seems so. Just outlining what works for me, and how I'm going to fiddle with the Newcastle diet to lower the carbs a bit for my preferences. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about how many carbs they want to eat. As I said, my way works for me. V

I've been following this thread and others about the Newcastle 'diet' for a while now as I have an interest in these things. I have decided to post as something here which is fundamentally wrong needs to be corrected or challenged for the benefit of those who know no better. I don't know what sidbonkers said in his deleted post but if it was about carbs and the importance of them in a diabetic diet then in my view if that is all that it was about then I cannot understand why it was deleted. However if it was derogatory then maybe that was the reason, however I think he and we should be told why it was done, who did it and openly as well. Seems like blatant censorship to me as sids posts are normally quite inoffensive and very informative.

Firstly louiseb nobody is hijacking anything and neither is anybody arguing about carbs or no carbs either. A very important point is being made by experienced members here which should be taken note of. You can ignore it if you wish but it is very relevant to all diabetics of whatever shape or form.

A member has stated quite clearly for all to see that this is only about calories and nothing to do with carbs, fat or protein. No relevance. That is utter bunkum and, as I believe sidbonkers and borofergie have pointed out, is wrong. They are correct to challenge this assertion, made by someone who must have little knowledge of the mechanics of the human body and its processes. A complex subject.

Carbs, or as the member concerned correctly states, carbohydrates, protein and fat are all food groups. When ingested they are also (cutting a long story short) transformed into calories which provide us with our daily energy needs. ALL of these groups provide us with calories so to say the thread is ONLY about calories misses the point totally. As a Diabetic it isn't just calories we need to monitor, the other food groups especially carbs (carbohydrates) are also very important.

There is a rule of 4.4.9. Perhaps the member is not aware of this. Basically this is the number of calories provided by each food group:

Carbohydrates. 4 calories per gram.
Protein. 4 calories per gram.
Fat. 9 calories per gram.

So, to ignore carbs etc and concentrate only on calories in a diet for diabetics is not really a wise move.

This is an extreme diet as well, supposedley to be undertaken only under medical supervision. I am sure the researchers would be horrified to learn that many seem to be doing this without such guidance. Whilst there may have been a warning given in another thread it seems because they are all now fragmented, all over the place, that this warning is not mentioned often enough, new members might think this is just something you can do by popping down the shops and getting some 'shakes'. It is not to be advised and whoever deleted what sid posted would be better employed reinforcing that message before somebody makes themselves ill on this 'fad' diet.

If I have upset anybody, my apologies, however it needs to be said.

Edited:
Apparently sidbonkers post wasn't edited or deleted ? So apologies for my first comments which should be disregarded. I will leave them though as it was what prompted me to post here in the first place.

viviennem said:

make sure you eat broccoli every day, or take a calcium supplement. You excrete the excess, as far as I know. Anyway, 8 weeks won't hurt.

Click to expand...

Not sure about that comment Viv when I was taking Adcal-D3 tablets one of the side effects I was warned of was kidney stones caused by a build up of calcium, so probably better to stick to the broccoli :thumbup:

Hi. Sorry my previous post was not very clear. I was replying to a post asking the difference between calories and carbs and I replied with reference to the diet we are on. I totally agree that knowing the weight of carbohydrate you are consuming is of vital importance to diabetics who are not following this diet as this will directly affect blood sugar levels. Apologies for any confusion.

geordie90 said:

Your always gonna get weak moments is wat you do after those moments that matter, in the past i would have lost heart and gone back to my 'normal' eating patterns, not now, its made me more determined to box and complete the diet

Click to expand...

Well done Geordie for getting back on track so quickly and positively. I admire your stamina.

Viv, I think you are on same wavelength as me.

Keep us up to date on how it works for you. Would be interesting to see if it has same effect as Newcastle diet or maybe even better.

The only thing puzzling me is your Hb levels are really good and you are doing brilliant with your weight loss so why change something that is obviously working so well.