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

The BBC. Don't know whether to laugh or cry.

R

Roxyj

Member
Messages
12
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Looking for recipes and a search threw up the BBC Food pages, on which there's a section on diabetic recipes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/collections/diabetes_recipes

In one, there was a link to a BBC article about diabetes, which the tag-line used for the link (which I now can't find!) suggested Type 2 could be avoided completely with the right lifestyle (and therefore implying it was entirely your own fault if you developed the disease). While there is an element of truth in this, the article goes on to say around 80% of Type 2 cases are preventable, meaning that 20% aren't, thereby undermining its own headline claim.

It talks about wholegrains and says "It has been questined whether people with, or at risk of, T2D should eat carbohydrates at all..." which is a nonsense statement. The next things it says is that "it's all too easy to make refined carbohydrates, such as white bread, pasta and most cereals , the foundation of every meal but this should be avoided". It does go on to say wholegrain varieties are better but stick with it. I'll get to the punchline shortly.

Finally (after having talked about the benefits of losing or being a healthy weight) it says "New research has shown that blood-sugar levels can be returned to normal by following a very low-calorie diet". Surely that should be low carb diet?

Now let's look at some of their "Diabetes" recipes: Lemony pasta bake (63g of carbs & doesn't mention using wholewheat pasta), Lighter lamb hotpot (topped with potatoes of course) (47g of carbs), Gammon & chips (48g of carbs), Lighter fish & chips (47g of carbs). Many of the recipes - ones containing rice, potatoes, dumplings or pies - don't even give the nutritional value, which is crucial for understanding what you're eating.

I've seen a few threads about the BBC and its skewed reporting of food issues but it seems that some of these "diabetes" recipes are anything but. Am I being a bit picky?
 
Roxyj said:
Finally (after having talked about the benefits of losing or being a healthy weight) it says "New research has shown that blood-sugar levels can be returned to normal by following a very low-calorie diet". Surely that should be low carb diet?
Click to expand...

I assume they are referring to the studies lead by Prof. Roy Taylor at Newcastle University. It ised a very low calorie diet protocol.
 
Even the fact they say that levels can be returned to normal with a low cal diet is misleading. Its low carb & low cal & levels typically only stay returned to normal if you stay low carb don't they? If someone reading that was resistant to the fact they might need to cut carbs long term they could definitely think going low cal was a magical fix.
 
Misleading? No. In that particular set of studies, After the weight loss the participants returned to a diet of about 50% carbs.

It was a mention in an article, not the actual study which hopefully people would actually look up if interested?

Not every T2 has to eat low carb to have normal numbers.
 
If you are talking DiRECT then only 36% were in remission (HbA1c sub 48 mmol/m after 24 months).
Possibly because they returned to eating 50% carbs.
 
Roxyj said:
Am I being a bit picky?
Click to expand...

No you are not being too picky. I have written elsewhere about how we need to be on our guard. I use the example of the egg salesman who said he sold more eggs when he wrote "Free Range" on the box. We are now going to get a plethora of people making money by writing "Diabetic" or "Keto" on the box or just using it to sound clever as the BBC has.
 

Why don’t you write to them and explain the errors and contradictions in the piece?
 
I would respectfully disagree. The threshold in the low calorie studies tends to be the pre-diabetic range i.e. less than 48 mmol. In order for the "fix" to stay the participant has to continue to eat two thirds the size of the meals they originally did and maintain at least a basic exercise regime due to the drop in basal metabolic rate (these are the guidelines within the Newcastle Diet).

50% of carbs when running at around 800 - 1200 calories would still relatively be low-ish carb by volume of food, that would be a starter for me. On this site those (I can think of 2 persons) who exercise fastidiously above the norm and have been able to cope with higher carb. Yet to see anyone who can eat say eat a starchy carb 50% satiating meal and maintain what the majority would say are normal numbers (for me this around fbg of 5, post prandial rise of circa 1.5 mmol and a non-diabetic HbA1c). 50% by volume low carb items should not be confused with high carb, I used to have a plate that would have loads of broccoli and the like.
 
Mbaker said:
I would respectfully disagree. The threshold in the low calorie studies tends to be the pre-diabetic range i.e. less than 48 mmol.
Click to expand...

Can you point me to the studies that use a different (lower) threshold for returning to “normal” with any other way of eating? Virta Health has some impressive results for low carb, but they define reversal as under 48 without any meds OTHER than Metformin. So, no real way to compare at all, and the same “48 or under” used regardless. Like to see any data that shows results at lower thresholds.


So these (mostly all overweight and obese people) were eating 1,200 - 1,800 calories pre-Newcastle study? And 800-1,200 post normal food plan reintroduction? I missed that data. Where did you find it?

The 2/3 number likely comes from the normal basal metabolic rate decrease that would result from going from obese to normal weight, nothing else. When you lose a lot of weight you need to eat less than you did pre- diet to maintain that loss. Even with a big increase in exercise this would be true.
 
Last edited:
I don't do study stuff, as this tends to be garbage apart from ones like the faster study. If I believed studies my cardiovascular risk should have gone up on LCHF / LCHP / Keto - instead down from 4. something to 2.1, similarly my blood pressure should have gone up from 140 / 78 doing weights, but went down to 120 / 72. I do real results with real people especially if they are backed with historical medical records. I know Virta results are better than ND, due to watching videos of their disclosures.

So I will start with myself, better results than anyone on the ND diet from the data disclosed and I would suspect many of my bio markers such as Trigs, HDL, HS-CRP, Fasting Insulin, Liver function are competitive. Debanez has a list of around 19 on this site who also have better results, below 42, and there are loads more in the success stories.

I have repeated what Professor Roy Taylor has detailed about his protocol, so I take this as accurate I.e. two thirds the original dinner size and exercise to maintain the results.

The reductions in basal metabolic rate are due to calorie restriction, this is a well known mechanism for type of dietary regime, as opposed to minimal drops demonstrated by those on LCHF and similar regimes. I have many documented food items on this site with pictures of what I have eaten. In the early days I was eatin circa 5000 calories and still losing weight.

I take advice from my wife a former GB international, personal trainer, has 2 degrees in Sports Science and Physiotherapy (she has been reversing diabetes for several years now, and overweight including for 2 wheel chair patients). I am currently at gym instructor qualifcation level and on a level 4 personal trainer course. I understand weight gain, loss, foods and exercise.
 
Last edited:

Absolutely none of your anecdotal experience has anything to do with my post #5, with which you disagreed.

Again, and I repeat, not all T2s have to eat low carb to get normal numbers.

And, again, in the Newcastle study protocol, they returned to a diet of about 50% carbs. And, as already been pointed out, 36% (wow 36%!) are still experiencing normal-glycemia after 2 years. Who wouldn’t applaud that?

(And neither you nor I have any idea how many calories the participants who maintained their weight loss are eating although it’s *highly* unlikely to be 800-1,200 as you stated given that 800-850 was the very quick weight-loss parameter..)
 
Last edited:
Repeats aren't necessary as I have been comparing protocols for almost 5 years. At one point again, documented on this site, I was excited by the ND. I then found out about the downsides, having to battle a diminished BMR and less food; so of course some might be able to do this. I would suggest that in terms of ease of use and adherence a full plate of food up to twice a day drives more compliance.

The anecdotes wipe the floor with studies, Atkins had 60,000 that are known about, Dr Westman has over 5000, last time I looked Diet Doctor had greater than 600, non Doctors such as Maria Emmerich have 1000's of anecdotes, and so on - these facts stand, as do those that over 95% of low calorie diets fail and ruin BMR, ask any yo-yo dieter. Low Carb diets fail.....when people stop doing them and go on a mixed diet, I suspect due to the carb temptations.

I do applaud the ND figures, but question the "normal" status, pre-diabetic is a significant achievement, but I know the banding for "normal", pre-diabetic and diabetic in my sleep, so the claims in my view should be accurate.

Whilst you can answer for your level of knowledge, I accept what the originators of the ND have said, as the trials were strict enough and actually very controlled, hence the shake use (sorry but yuk, I would do the real food version if I had to). I could link what the authors say.

The implication of one of the posts you put up, essentially argued that to get "normal" numbers it is possible for Type 2's to do this on 50% carbs (high carb), I put some context that firstly there are calories in / calories out requirements of reduced food intake by a third and that exercise is part of the protocol. The first point I personally think is torture, so take my hat off to anyone who could maintain this, exercise I have no problem with, but I know that for male higher level performance the food intake would not sustain any serious amateur athlete and would not even be considered by say Andy Murray, Anthony Joshua types - nowhere near enough calories. Second, I have shone a light on the question of what are remission numbers (as the ND diet called the results remission), I believe this should align with the diabetic diagnosis accepted numbers.

Your statement that you have repeated "not all T2s have to eat low carb to get normal numbers." is factually in correct in my view, unless the caveats I have pointed out are taken into account. For someone looking to manage Type 2 via diet the caveats are massive and need full explanation. I would go so far to say that the any Type 2 who tried to eat 50% of their diet using regular everyday usual suspect carbs such as bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, cakes, biscuits and the like would be back in non-remission in no time, especially if portion sizes were similar to those eating LCHF equivalents.

Debanez was on TV last week with her excellent LCHF results, the Doctor who was on at the same time managed to shoe horn the ND protocol into the discussion in all but name, which was a slight misrepresentation (perhaps unintended), The Doctor has been on many TV shows and would definitely know about low carb.
 

Sorry @Walking Girl
two thirds fail... Not a glowing recommendation, in my eyes

A point that seems valid is the ND, seems more like a crash diet over many weeks.
Presumably the more toxic levels would be reduced if you were on starvation levels of food.

Maybe we are like a pot.. Slowly simmering over with carbs.. Drain a few carbs off, and the put isn't over flowing, but begin adding back in and sooner or later.....aghh.
As the 2/3rds maybe found out.

Good luck to those finding other routes we are all different

I do believe and agree with @Mbaker
That the benefits of low carb is also the quantity of food, which in turn adds to a person's ability to maintain the diet over an extended time frame.
 
Just want to point out that 47.9mmol/mol equates to an average glucose concentration of ~7.8mmol/L. A generous interpretation of 'normal glycemia'.

Of course, that said, each to their own and whatever works for the individual.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jim Lahey said:
Just want to point out that 47.9mmol/mol equates to an average glucose concentration of ~7.8mmol/L. A generous interpretation of 'normal glycemia'.

Of course, that said, each to their own and whatever works for the individual.
Click to expand...
In my sig is Jenny Ruhl 101...and a point about what level damage is done..8mmol seems the start of that zone...that average is rather too close for my liking so I would want to be a good bit lower personally..
 
jjraak said:
In my sig is Jenny Ruhl 101...and a point about what level damage is done..8mmol seems the start of that zone...that average is rather too close for my liking so I would want to be a good bit lower personally..
Click to expand...

My biggest concern with averaging ~8mmol/L is that it's most likely requiring permanently high insulin concentrations in order to achieve (it's nowhere near what I consider to be a normal baseline). Elevated glucose and elevated insulin churning around is not my idea of remission or whatever we want to call it, regardless of the method used to achieve it. I'm not going to labour the point though. We are all entitled to our views
 
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.…