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

Success with moderate calorie diet?

Not eating is possibly a bit too extreme low calorie for me, but at least it's on the right forum.
The difficulty is when I'm eating out for days at a time, the problem I have is not eating for that sort of period becomes more difficult for me.
Respect if you can do it though.
Definitely a low calorie diet then!
 

My answer was yes a moderate calorie diet works for weight loss and blood glucose control and so to reverse Prediabetes.
My answer was also no I don't think it can be reversed-once you're Diabetic you are Diabetic you are Diabetic although it may be possible to control it with diet and exercise again-I am not sure yet-it has only been three months.
 
Last edited:

On the cutoff being HA1c 6.5 or 7.0 it depends on whose definition you are using. I do not use the American Dietetic Association's definition. I may change my mind once I get back down to that range however I am very happy with the 0.5 point downward trend in my first three months. It really seems you went out of your way to rain on my parade here-is this in an attempt to say that you believe one can only reverse Prediabetes with LCHF very strictly applied? because I know many people who do not have any idea what a carb is and have reversed their Prediabetes with weight loss and exercise alone.
 
bobrobert said:
Is it sustainable over the long term? Calorie reduction doesn't work long term therefore carb reduction is better?
Click to expand...

I am doing both calorie and carb reduction. I am eating moderate amounts of carbohydrates at 80 to 120 carbs per day, with a few exceptions that were over that amount for Christmas. I am eating an average of 1470 calories per day this week and that figures in two high days for Christmas celebrations. I think this may be very sustainable for me, but as I lose weight it I will have to eat less than that at some point to continue losing weight because as my mass decreases my basal metabolic rate or the amount of calories I need just to maintain my self daily will decrease. I am just planning to lose 20 pounds total with a weight loss of about 1 pound per month. That means that I am planning to sustain it for 1 year and 8 months at this time. I am already not nearly as hungry as I was the first month. At my age, 57 years, there is a general trend to gain a few pounds a year for most people. If I achieve just not gaining more and keeping my average blood glucose where it is or lower I will be happy and consider it a success. That's the wonderful thing about taking charge of your own health-you get to decide what success is!
 

Thank you for clarifying, I had missed that point in the detail of your answer and it had certainly seemed like OP had too.

Sorry if you think I was trying to rain on your parade. The improvements in your glycaemic control and your health are certainly very admirable. It just seemed that your post was very inconsistent for someone taking insulin to be saying they had reversed diabetes, which is what I had read it as saying but now you've taken pity on me and clarfied what you meant.
 
Hi @NonStop, depending on variables such as amount of insulin resistance, visceral fat, beta cell loss, liver and pancreas function, it might take a significant time to reverse diabetes using a moderate restriction. Michael Mosley (of Trust Me i'm a Doctor, The 5.2 diet and The Blood Sugar diet) advocates rapid weight loss over circa 8 to 12 weeks, supplemented thereafter with a Mediterranean diet (if it were me I would supplement with LCHF).

Rapid weight loss I would suggest offers advantages as you can see results quickly which can help with motivation. Peers will notice and comment, which enables further encouragements ; in addition other conditions such as high blood pressure, eye, circulatory, fatty liver and or kidney issues can be alleviated.

Lables such as "cured", "reversed", "remission", and "well controlled", are about definition. I am of the opinion that a "reversal" is statistical reduction of key markers (fasting blood glucose, 2 hour response after meals, and either 2 or 3 normal range HbA1c measurements in a row) to within non-diabetic ranges. I think during the lead up to the aforementioned, reductions could be classified as "reversing". I am not sure about "cured" as this is others say is down to OGTT tests or responses after a carby meal.
 
I do not see the benefits of a low calorie intake AFTER the Newcastle diet has done it's work. It is possible to be eating 800 calories a day containing only carbs and that wouldn't be good?
Keep the carbs under 100 grms and the same with protein and then the amount of calories is meaningless unless overeating is happening. I lost three stone WITHOUT counting calories because I counted carbs and protein. The fat content didn't matter because I ate till i was full and no more.
 
bobrobert said:
Is it sustainable over the long term? Calorie reduction doesn't work long term therefore carb reduction is better?
Click to expand...
I would question as why would calorie reduction would not work long term when you say carb reduction can it is surely down to the individual person as to how sustainable they are.
 

Did you reverse your diabetes that way?
Or do you need to count carbs for life still?
 
Pinkorchid said:
I would question as why would calorie reduction would not work long term when you say carb reduction can it is surely down to the individual person as to how sustainable they are.
Click to expand...

If you re read my comment about 800 calories and it containing only carbs then you will possibly understand? It is possible to eat a lot of calories with low carb and lose weight but a little amount of calories and high carbs and gain weight and have poor diabetic control. Diabetic control is all about reducing carb intake and not the amount of food you eat. Do you count carbs and use a meter?
 
Pinkorchid said:
I would question as why would calorie reduction would not work long term when you say carb reduction can it is surely down to the individual person as to how sustainable they are.
Click to expand...
Your body adjusts calories burned to balance calories consumed (according to Jason Fung's "The Obesity Code") So calorie restriction does not work in the long term.
 

I think it's worth addressing the two points you mentioned.
Even after the Newcastle diet, even if reversal is achieved, some of us want to continue to reduce our BMI to a 'normal' number.
I certainly wanted to, and also found that I felt a lot better, could do a lot more exercise, and my lifestyle greatly improved. So I didn't overeat during that period either.
I also think you are getting a bit fixated on imagining that everyone then seems to continue to low calorie after.
Obviously, having achieved our targets, we eat normally, low carb is for life, low calorie is to achieve a specific target usually.
When that target is achieved, it's time to move onto a maintenance diet.
I do agree I don't 'eat until I'm full' though.
That was a habit that I desperately strove to break, and I saw eating until I was full as the thing that got me where I was, so I now eat enough, and if I'm not 'full', I know it's simply a state of mind,
If I gain weight, I realise I'm overeating, if I lose weight, I realise I need to eat more.

(As to eating 800 calories of carbs, I doubt any meal plan would consist of that, all diet plans are balanced)
 
walnut_face said:
Your body adjusts calories burned to balance calories consumed (according to Jason Fung's "The Obesity Code") So calorie restriction does not work in the long term.
Click to expand...

To answer that, I imagine there are many that are not followers of Jason Fung, so our bodies tend to work differently?
I know mine does.
 

Simply 'no' for a lot of us.
The Newcastle diet is about calorie control, and seems to reverse diabetes in many cases, not simply control it.
However we both seem to be speaking from experience, and are both happy with our different methods, and different outcomes.
 

A few posts that I have read about calorie control - after the Newcastle diet has done it's work - don't mention the amount of carbs being eaten and don't mention testing. That is my concern. The Newcastle diet isn't a means to an end but a starting point for a lifetime of a low carb regime. My mention of 800 calories and it being full of calories was to illustrate a point and not to be taken literally. BTW controlling and reversing is the same???
 
My HbA1c results are in prediabetic levels and I am not or ever have been overweight.
 

Controlling by avoiding carbs for life, and reversing by being symptom free even after eating carbs are not the same in my opinion.

You seem to be convinced that even though many have reversed diabetes by low calorie, in some way we still must be low carbing? That may be why you are needlessly concerned. Carbs aren't an issue if diabetes has been reversed, just as in the 'normal' population. (That is my standard for 'reversal') Just once bitten, obviously good diet is forefront in out minds, so I don't eat anything resembling my previous junk food diet.
Mediterranean diet is my choice now.

I doubt many on here haven't grasped the need to test, so I don't think you need to be concerned on that score for the others on the forum though.

I hope this helps put your mind at rest.
 
My doctor congratulated me at the start of the month. She said that I had reversed my diabetes. Blood sugar level 4.7 or 28. She stressed that I wasn't in any danger from the diabetes but I had to carry on eating the way I did or the good work would be undone. In other words I CAN'T go back to eating what a NORMAL person eats. The Mediterranean diet contains a lot of grain and personally speaking that isn't good?
 

I think you have very succinctly summed it up.
I have normal bloods, BP, BMI, kidney, liver, cholesterol, (NHS cholesterol targets), and I do eat what a NORMAL person does.
Personally speaking the Mediterranean diet gives me a great variety of choice, for example, if I'm out, grains will not cause problems, if I am somewhere were it's difficult to avoid them if they are the predominant choice.

However, my proviso is that if I do gain weight, I expect my BG to do the same, and vice versa.
The scales and fasting test are my guides.
 
walnut_face said:
Your body adjusts calories burned to balance calories consumed (according to Jason Fung's "The Obesity Code") So calorie restriction does not work in the long term.
Click to expand...

Hi @walnutface sorry to kind of contradict you - I know what you mean, and I agree, but it isn't Jason Fung coming up with a theory and telling us about it.

All Jason Fung does is quote a number of highly reputable studies, going back decades, that show prolonged low calorie eating lowers the metabolic rate, and puts the body into what has (for decades) been referred to as 'starvation mode'. He certainly doesn't claim to have come up with idea, he just uses evidence that has been ignored by people obsessed with the 'eat less move more' nonsense.

Interestingly, he also quotes a number of reputable studies that show Fasting does NOT put people into 'starvation mode', and often raises metabolic rate, while helping to preserve muscle mass (more than prolonged low calorie eating does) while burning fat for fuel.

All his arguments and evidence and clearly explained research is available for free on his blog for those who don't want to pay for the book. He has a series of blog entries on calorie v fasting theories, going through the evidence and applying a refreshing amount of common sense.
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/
 
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.…