- Messages
- 992
- Type of diabetes
- I reversed my Type 2
- Treatment type
- Diet only
Actually that leads nicely to the next point - I've now finished the "Life without Diabetes" book - and really only disagree on two things - Roy Taylor talks about Fructose being turned into Glucose by the liver, (whereas he talks about alcohol being better thought of as liquid fat - I think that's closer to the position with Fructose) and while he dismisses the narrative about saturated fat leading to heart disease via raised LDL, he does continue the narrative about saturated fat itself being undesirable (albeit in quite a nuanced way) in the diet. I think things have simply moved on since this book was written.
Also, it may well be that he's a better politicker than I am - you don't get to be a professor of medicine and raise several million pounds, and single handedly overturn the concept that T2DM is inevitably progressive without being able to choose your battles.
Overall, I was amazed at how much I agree with - and everything else is really a question of emphasis. You emphasise the problem with too much fat deposits, and de-emphasise the role that the hormones have to play, and you change a condition of hormone dysregulation to one of fat dysregulation - but to some extent it's as useful as arguing about which came first, the chicken or the egg? - does the existence of chickens depend on one of the theories being the correct one? - not really.
You can also take his entire book, and say that I, personally have done everything precisely according to his plan, and had the desired outcome. I just haven't used meal-replacement shakes, I've focused on a way of eating that priorities lowering insulin - however, I did it in a stepped way, with a very sudden and extreme first step, a transition step, and a long term phase, I've lost about the amount of weight he recommends (I just know that my way has avoided any loss of muscle) and my long term eating is probably about 3/4 the amount of calories (I just get there by eating more fat, and therefore naturally feeling more full more quickly) - but all of the things I've done are discussed in his book, and he talks about the pros and cons, and that different things work for different people.
I could turn it around, and say that the meal-replacement shakes are really one form of extreme intermittent fast. You can't take them forever, and you can't fast forever.
But - for a lot of people - buying into the idea of meal-replacement shakes is easier than accepting, or even trying intermittent fasting. So - you meet people where they are, and everyone benefits.
I'm certainly more happy recommending the Newcastle approach having read the book.
Personally - I still think that in the long term, you will be healthier and more mentally resilient by becoming metabolically fat-adapted, and that the Newcastle approach is easier to achieve by working with your hormones to avoid hunger, but I no longer feel that this is an obstacle - it's just that I think there are subtleties on top.
Also, it may well be that he's a better politicker than I am - you don't get to be a professor of medicine and raise several million pounds, and single handedly overturn the concept that T2DM is inevitably progressive without being able to choose your battles.
Overall, I was amazed at how much I agree with - and everything else is really a question of emphasis. You emphasise the problem with too much fat deposits, and de-emphasise the role that the hormones have to play, and you change a condition of hormone dysregulation to one of fat dysregulation - but to some extent it's as useful as arguing about which came first, the chicken or the egg? - does the existence of chickens depend on one of the theories being the correct one? - not really.
You can also take his entire book, and say that I, personally have done everything precisely according to his plan, and had the desired outcome. I just haven't used meal-replacement shakes, I've focused on a way of eating that priorities lowering insulin - however, I did it in a stepped way, with a very sudden and extreme first step, a transition step, and a long term phase, I've lost about the amount of weight he recommends (I just know that my way has avoided any loss of muscle) and my long term eating is probably about 3/4 the amount of calories (I just get there by eating more fat, and therefore naturally feeling more full more quickly) - but all of the things I've done are discussed in his book, and he talks about the pros and cons, and that different things work for different people.
I could turn it around, and say that the meal-replacement shakes are really one form of extreme intermittent fast. You can't take them forever, and you can't fast forever.
But - for a lot of people - buying into the idea of meal-replacement shakes is easier than accepting, or even trying intermittent fasting. So - you meet people where they are, and everyone benefits.
I'm certainly more happy recommending the Newcastle approach having read the book.
Personally - I still think that in the long term, you will be healthier and more mentally resilient by becoming metabolically fat-adapted, and that the Newcastle approach is easier to achieve by working with your hormones to avoid hunger, but I no longer feel that this is an obstacle - it's just that I think there are subtleties on top.