T2 Diabetes remission success rate for Low Calorie diets?

[pdmjoker]

and that doing this early in diagnosis was less effective than later on

I thought it was the other way round: better remission success with those newly diagnosed...
Of course, Low Carb burns off liver fat, too.

 

[NicoleC1971]

I thought it was the other way round: better remission success with those newly diagnosed...
Of course, Low Carb burns off liver fat, too.

Sorry . You are totally right and that is what I meant. Thank you for clarifying. The greater the insulin resistance the longer it takes to achieve remission or whatever we are supposed to call it!

 

[pdmjoker]

Sorry . You are totally right and that is what I meant. Thank you for clarifying. The greater the insulin resistance the longer it takes to achieve remission or whatever we are supposed to call it!

No probs - shows you are a member of the human race too!

 

[VashtiB]

Wow! I am also so glad to 'have been deceived by this site'. Glad grateful, weighing less and with my blood sugars in the normal range without anything except metformin- if that is the result of being deceived I'll take that every time.

I tried- initially and very very briefly eating 'healthy carbs' and my blood sugars were way heigh. In fact on my diagnosis my blood sugars were high as I had steel cut oats, low fat sugar fee yogurt and a few strawberries- a very 'healthy' meal. Without this site I would weigh more, be on more medication and staring diabetic complications in the face.

 

[Tannith]

Wow! I am also so glad to 'have been deceived by this site'. Glad grateful, weighing less and with my blood sugars in the normal range without anything except metformin- if that is the result of being deceived I'll take that every time.

I tried- initially and very very briefly eating 'healthy carbs' and my blood sugars were way heigh. In fact on my diagnosis my blood sugars were high as I had steel cut oats, low fat sugar fee yogurt and a few strawberries- a very 'healthy' meal. Without this site I would weigh more, be on more medication and staring diabetic complications in the face.

I did the Newcastle diet in the last few months of 2017.Losing the first 15 lbs brought my BG down to normal, then I lost some more weight (about 7lbs) in the following 6 months, whilst only intending to stay level but being too cautious. Now I have put back that 7lbs during lockdown (I blame the ice cream!) and have just started this week, trying to lose it again, as the extra 7lbs has put my BGs back above the prediabetes threshold. It's not a disaster yet, but it can't go on. I have to lose that weight immediately or I could go back to full blown T2.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

I've seen success figures for Dr David Unwin reversing Type 2 Diabetes with Low Carb diets: nearly half his T2 patients are now in remission.

Has anyone seen any success figures quoted for T2 remission with Low Calorie diets?

It's interesting that Dr David Unwin happily talks about low carb diets while Professor Roy Taylor talks about a low calorie diet. I've been trying to find details of what's in a low calorie diet so I can work out how much carb it contains. Until I get the deatils I'm going out on a limb and suggesting that if you start eating 1/3 of your normal calories then you will also be cutting the carbs that you eat, possibly not by the same amount as calories but I bet it's not far off. I just need one of Dr Taylor's meal plans.

 

[bulkbiker]

I've been trying to find details of what's in a low calorie diet so I can work out how much carb it contains

This is the ingredients list from one of the Counterweight shakes that are being provided by the NHS to some people.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0025/9742/1105/files/capuccino-w-ingredients.jpg?v=1583407732

Interestingly some of the trial leaders in DiRECT are shareholders in Counterweight Ltd...not Lean or Taylor though.

Edit to add with 4 of those per day just under 100g of carbs so "low carb".

 

[Oldvatr]

It's interesting that Dr David Unwin happily talks about low carb diets while Professor Roy Taylor talks about a low calorie diet. I've been trying to find details of what's in a low calorie diet so I can work out how much carb it contains. Until I get the deatils I'm going out on a limb and suggesting that if you start eating 1/3 of your normal calories then you will also be cutting the carbs that you eat, possibly not by the same amount as calories but I bet it's not far off. I just need one of Dr Taylor's meal plans.

This is a Tale of Two Diets. They are competing for acceptance from the same audiences. They have to convince the nutritionista and the overseers that control the official channels to acceptance, namely, the stakeholders SACN, NICE, BNF, BHF, and all the other quangos that need to tick the box. Following EATWELL and the CICO pathway is a sure fire winner with most of those bodies since it is already their mantra.

Going a new and unproven path such as macro nutrient restriction is never going to get a look in When you consider all the re-training of the educators, the rewriting of manuals, guidelines, procedures, regulations etc then Low Carb has a lot of expensive inertia inbuilt that would need to be put in place, whereas Low Calorie using an existing proven meal replacement plan that is already authorised for weight loss is just a small tweak to the system.

So Prof Taylor knows that admitting it may have a keto tendency would be instant death knell for his plan. So he denies it.

 

[Mr_Pot]

This is the ingredients list from one of the Counterweight shakes that are being provided by the NHS to some people.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0025/9742/1105/files/capuccino-w-ingredients.jpg?v=1583407732

Interestingly some of the trial leaders in DiRECT are shareholders in Counterweight Ltd...not Lean or Taylor though.

Edit to add with 4 of those per day just under 100g of carbs so "low carb".

What do they mean by starch as opposed to carbohydrate or fibre?

 

[bulkbiker]

What do they mean by starch as opposed to carbohydrate or fibre?

I presume its the non sugar carbohydrates.. If you add the starch 37.6 to the sugar 6.3 you get 43.9 which is the carb content..
Try to "healthwash" it maybe.

 

[loiphamp]

I would make sure that the term 'remission' has clear definitions in the sources, and whether they are comparable.
The definition can sometimes vary between studies, and certainly between people's interpretations of the studies and their own circumstances.

Apparently, by Roy Taylor's definition of 'remission' I have been in it for years.
But that means nothing to me, since my body wouldn't stay in remission if I ate moderate carbs for more than about a week. Been there, done that, the T shirt is rather old now.

I had been low carbs for few years, now I can eat anything I want(ice cream,pasta,pizza...etc) for at least 6 months .HbA1C in normal range.

 

[pdmjoker]

It's interesting that Dr David Unwin happily talks about low carb diets while Professor Roy Taylor talks about a low calorie diet. I've been trying to find details of what's in a low calorie diet so I can work out how much carb it contains. Until I get the deatils I'm going out on a limb and suggesting that if you start eating 1/3 of your normal calories then you will also be cutting the carbs that you eat, possibly not by the same amount as calories but I bet it's not far off. I just need one of Dr Taylor's meal plans.

Looks like we had similar thoughts: https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/direct-intervention-looks-like-liberal-low-carb.175986/

 

[Daibell]

What do they mean by starch as opposed to carbohydrate or fibre?

The term 'starch' and 'starchy carbs' are used by many 'experts' with little understanding of what they are saying. Much of the starch we eat comes from grains and starch is the inner core of the grain; it's the bit that is left after the more healthy and fibrous husk is removed as in white flour. All carbs are turned into glucose eventually in the stomach with some going right thru the body. Fibre is the non-starch bit. I see little point in using the term 'starch' at all. Much better to just talk about carbs and the fibre content?

 

[Daibell]

With regard to Low-carb versus Low-Calorie I have never understood the logic of Prof Taylor's ND and Calorie thinking. Of course lowering Calories will help with weight BS reduction but is it the most optimal approach - no? More and more people are using the term 'Calories' as if they are a food group with 'Carbs' relegated to the back of food packs. As fats have twice the calories of carbs reducing calories is indeterminant on which food groups will be reduced which is surely weak science. A low-carb diet is clear - you are reducing the carbs. As science has determined that carbs are turned to glucose in the stomach and these will be stored in excess the need to have some direct control on carbs to me is obvious. Fats are less readily stored as fat and hence don't need the same focus as carbs yet are on the front of food packs - to me that's madness. It worries me that the NHS and DUK are behind the 800 calorie diet. Where is the science that it is the best approach? I could say a lot about SACN/SCAN and PHE but many others have said it!

 

[pdmjoker]

With regard to Low-carb versus Low-Calorie I have never understood the logic of Prof Taylor's ND and Calorie thinking. Of course lowering Calories will help with weight BS reduction but is it the most optimal approach - no? More and more people are using the term 'Calories' as if they are a food group with 'Carbs' relegated to the back of food packs. As fats have twice the calories of carbs reducing calories is indeterminant on which food groups will be reduced which is surely weak science. A low-carb diet is clear - you are reducing the carbs. As science has determined that carbs are turned to glucose in the stomach and these will be stored in excess the need to have some direct control on carbs to me is obvious. Fats are less readily stored as fat and hence don't need the same focus as carbs yet are on the front of food packs - to me that's madness. It worries me that the NHS and DUK are behind the 800 calorie diet. Where is the science that it is the best approach? I could say a lot about SACN/SCAN and PHE but many others have said it!

Have you seen this paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2014.06.011 titled "Dietary carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management: Critical review and evidence base" which says

Discussion
The need for a reappraisal of dietary recommendations stems from the following:

1. General failure to halt the epidemic of diabetes under current guidelines.
2. The specific failure of low-fat diets to improve obesity, cardiovascular risk, or general health (points 1 and 4).
3. Constant reports of side effects of commonly prescribed diabetic medications, some quite serious (points 12).
4. Most importantly, the continued success of low-carbohydrate diets to meet the challenges of improvement in the features of diabetes and metabolic syndrome in the absence of side effects.
​

and answers some of your questions.

 

[Oldvatr]

Since I look at all study reports to check for possible bias, I have to do the same with this one. All the Good Folk associated with Low Carb are piled up high on the author list, and the referenced studies are all written by themselves. so this paper is very incestuous, I am not saying what they say is wrong, merely that it is hardly independent, and that is poor science to base conclusions on. As an overview it does ok, but paints a very blinkered viewpoint that critics will pull to pieces.

I suspect it was produced as an introduction to one of the Low Carb Events so is preaching to the converted. That what it sounds like.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

Edit to add with 4 of those per day just under 100g of carbs so "low carb".

Thanks for the reference. At least a 50% cut on the recommended 250gms. I was just double checking that when a found an article from the Sun and I quote "The NHS recommends people aim for an average of 30g per day, but most only eat around 18g." Somebody in the proof reading department messed up. It later went on to say:
Daily reference intakes for the average adult aged 19 to 64 are : ( I took out the rest for brevity)
Carbohydrate: at least 260g
Total sugars: 90g
Sorry, I digress, I'm just getting over a UTI and my head is all over the place, there you go, done it again.
We're all different but I know that if I consumed 100 gms of carb every day I'd be looking for more medication. It obviously works for loads of people and that's great. I'd need a low carb version of the diet although with some of those meal replacements and I might be thinking of the Cambridge, they contain around 50gms carb per sachet. I'd have to try one to see the effect. If it was food, I'd know.
I'm only rambling and putting my thoughts on paper.

 

[pdmjoker]

Since I look at all study reports to check for possible bias, I have to do the same with this one. All the Good Folk associated with Low Carb are piled up high on the author list, and the referenced studies are all written by themselves. so this paper is very incestuous, I am not saying what they say is wrong, merely that it is hardly independent, and that is poor science to base conclusions on. As an overview it does ok, but paints a very blinkered viewpoint that critics will pull to pieces.

I suspect it was produced as an introduction to one of the Low Carb Events so is preaching to the converted. That what it sounds like.

Checking studies is a good practice to have. Note: It must be hard to do research work on Low Carb with people who are adamantly against it. (RCTs should avoid bias from the data, although interpreting that data always involves personal judgement. Plus, I wouldn't say Ancel Keys was a Low Carb proponent and his studies are referenced. )
Perhaps it was indeed produced as an introduction to a Low Carb Event. Was the paper peer reviewed?

 

[Oldvatr]

Checking studies is a good practice to have. Note: It must be hard to do research work on Low Carb with people who are adamantly against it. (RCTs should avoid bias from the data, although interpreting that data always involves personal judgement. Plus, I wouldn't say Ancel Keys was a Low Carb proponent and his studies are referenced. )
Perhaps it was indeed produced as an introduction to a Low Carb Event. Was the paper peer reviewed?

For peer review read:
"RDF wrote the original draft and incorporated changes and corrections from the other authors. All authors approved the final manuscript.!

As I said, all the referenced studies appear to be from the authors themselves, but I have not properly crosschecked this. The paper is written as if all the statements are facts, when much of them xould be classed as opinion. There is no real attempt at debate. It appears to be a collation of 'evidence' from one side of the discussion only, and as the paper admits. their evidence is not based on RCTs

There is no introduction identifying any particular audience, but there is talk of governments having to put things into placewithin the body of the paper. This doc is a reference list for those interested in LC diets but certainly does not prove anything.

 

[pdmjoker]

For peer review read:
"RDF wrote the original draft and incorporated changes and corrections from the other authors. All authors approved the final manuscript.!

As I said, all the referenced studies appear to be from the authors themselves, but I have not properly crosschecked this. The paper is written as if all the statements are facts, when much of them xould be classed as opinion. There is no real attempt at debate. It appears to be a collation of 'evidence' from one side of the discussion only, and as the paper admits. their evidence is not based on RCTs

There is no introduction identifying any particular audience, but there is talk of governments having to put things into placewithin the body of the paper. This doc is a reference list for those interested in LC diets but certainly does not prove anything.

A helpful summary - thank you!