• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

The one show discussion

How do you know the programme content before it is aired?
PS: fromt he linked page:

can be an extraordinarily successful way of losing weight and improving obesity-related health conditions including Type 2 diabetes and osteoarthritis.

I have bolded the bit i mean as blaming obesity for type 2 diabetes, not the other way round, and ignoring the many who are slim but type 2.
 
There is nothing special about “The Newcastle diet” these diet shakes were on the market for many decades before Prof Taylor did his research. But before he published his research, doctors did not believe they work, as crash diets were thought to always fail. Recent research has shown that the speed of weight loss does not lead to people being more likely to regain the weight. Hence “crush” low carb diets like “The New Atkins for a New You” can be a good option. People also tend to keep to them better, as the commitment is for a shorter time.

We tend to tell people to start slowly, as it is easier with meds, and their blood glucose meter can be used to motivate them, with reducing carbs until they get to the level they can cope with. But doing it the other way round, going VERY low carb, then once the weight is lost; slowly increasing carbs can also work.

There are many people on this forum who have used the shakes, and then moved onto some sort of moderate low carb “diet” getting great results.

As one who achieved success with Newcastle diet and has maintained weight and blood glucose levels since adopting the low carb lifestyle, I have to offer some support to the very low calorie diet methodology. With some reservations...

All media seems to take a theory and then find 'evidence' to fit their theories. Although the TV programme hasn't aired yet, I think some of us, me included, are assuming it will be in the format of 'sad, fat, people who were previously greedy, lazy, junk food gobbling slobs have lives transformed in just 9 weeks'. If only it was so simple. I would hope to see some sort of analysis of what they are advised diet wise in the follow up. Also how they coped.

In my own case, the ND methodology enabled me, for the first time in many many years to achieve a substantial weight loss, but more importantly for me, within a week of starting I was achieving non-diabetic blood glucose levels, and have remained so, despite regaining some of the weight.

It would be really helpful if the participants in the TV programme are also given advice on following the low carb lifestyle. It took me 3 years after my ND stint to discover low carbing. It should have been obvious, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. The weight regain was after following NHS dietician advice on healthy carbs and portion size. Then being demoralised because not only did it not work for me weightwise, but also the feeling that I was being regarded as a liar and judged when the recommendation didn't work.

My conclusion is that no one method suits everyone, and if we decry or discredit any particular method we could be denying folks of finding the way that works for them. I am still obese despite weighing 30 kg less than I did before ND. (Almost 50 kg loss on ND). The 20kg regain was in the interim between finishing ND and working out LCHF really envy those of you who start LCHF and quickly lose weight. I just maintain weight with that regime. I think I am not alone in that , though don't want to name anyone, and I hope nobody here would treat us in the same way some HCPs have, i.e. Make us feel like failures / liars, just because we aren't fitting the theory.

I won't be able to watch the TV programme tonight, but will get it on catch up as soon as I can. It should be interesting. I really hope the follow on will be a low carb programme.
 
PS: fromt he linked page:



I have bolded the bit i mean as blaming obesity for type 2 diabetes, not the other way round, and ignoring the many who are slim but type 2.
Thanks, what I meant was we cannot know the full picture until after the whole tv programme has been seen.
 
From what I understand the TV program used a system that included one to one support from a “diet consultant” including after the person has gone back to real food. (I expect the company chose their best consultants.)
 
I fail to see anything new or radical. Slimfast has been around since I was in my twenties, there is no doubt that a calorie restricted diet will aid weight loss and I suspect that the programme will show show lovely graphics of how it actually works but as has been said, it is afterwards that will prove difficult unless refeeeding is addressed.
 
Well I watched it and don’t understand! The priest guy was told his Diabetes had gone into remission, that he no longer had it! They didn’t cite his exact HbA1c but the graph on the computer screen clearly showed him in the pre-diabetic range. At the start of the show they said he was on medication but didn’t mention whether he was still on them at the end of the show!

Edit to add when they showed the computer screen, the Dr said something like, you are clearly below the diabetic range.
 
Well I watched it and don’t understand! The priest guy was told his Diabetes had gone into remission, that he no longer had it! They didn’t cite his exact HbA1c but the graph on the computer screen clearly showed him in the pre-diabetic range. At the start of the show they said he was on medication but didn’t mention whether he was still on them at the end of the show!

Edit to add when they showed the computer screen, the Dr said something like, you are clearly below the diabetic range.

It was what Prof. Taylor said that I didn't understand, the bit about ridding the pancreas of excess fat. I will have to rewind then do some research into that because of the small (!) issue of hyperinsulinaemia.
 
It was what Prof. Taylor said that I didn't understand, the bit about ridding the pancreas of excess fat. I will have to rewind then do some research into that because of the small (!) issue of hyperinsulinaemia.

The whole Diabetes issue was way over simplified and I keep thinking of that poor guy thinking he’s cured. I wonder what his HbA1c is now. It looks like it was filmed last autumn.
 
The whole Diabetes issue was way over simplified and I keep thinking of that poor guy thinking he’s cured. I wonder what his HbA1c is now. It looks like it was filmed last autumn.

I agree. When the doc mentioned remission I thought 'That's fine, now explain to him what you mean by remission and how easy one could lose remission by returning to a western diet'.
 
I agree. When the doc mentioned remission I thought 'That's fine, now explain to him what you mean by remission and how easy one could lose remission by returning to a western diet'.
He did say at the start he loved a roast dinner, hopefully he’s cut out the carbs!
 
He did say at the start he loved a roast dinner, hopefully he’s cut out the carbs!

The first proper food meal they had looked great for non Ds. It didn't look too bad for a T2 though the chicken looked to have a little sauce that I would want to be looking at.

Edited to add. I did think it was very low fat, though.
 
There is nothing special about “The Newcastle diet” these diet shakes were on the market for many decades before Prof Taylor did his research.

My weight problem started when I was 12 and forced to stay to school dinners, that was 1963. In those days dieting meant giving up bread and potatoes (we never had pasta and rarely ate rice) and keeping calories below 1,000. Almost sounds familiar. Somehow my weight was "normal", for a six footer, between the mid 70s and the late 80s. Wish I could remember what I did so differently. Probably prolonged unintentional low carb, low fat (that was intentional).
 
Paul's graph didn't seem to make any sense to me at first so I took a screen grab. It's actually an OGTT:



They've apparently just measured his plasma glucose before and 2 hours afterwards, as per the WHO standard. They've then connected the two points with a line which seems pointless and misleading.

Anyway he started with a fasting level of just over 4 (very good, well done him) and 2 hours later he was at about 8. Who knows what happened in between? That's a problem I have with the WHO specification for how to monitor and interpret an OGTT - what happens between 0 and 120 minutes seems to vary hugely, with a truly non-diabetic person getting a small rise and a diabetic person getting a very big rise.

I took a home OGTT recently - my starting point was 6.1 and my end point was 10.6, suggesting I have 'impaired glucose tolerance' so I'd be classed as the same as Paul - I'd start in the green and end in the yellow in the graph above. But because I measured every 20 minutes I know I had a horrendous spike, reaching nearly 18 mmol/l at 60 minutes.
 
Paul's graph didn't seem to make any sense to me at first so I took a screen grab. It's actually an OGTT:



They've apparently just measured his plasma glucose before and 2 hours afterwards, as per the WHO standard. They've then connected the two points with a line which seems pointless and misleading.

Anyway he started with a fasting level of just over 4 (very good, well done him) and 2 hours later he was at about 8. Who knows what happened in between? That's a problem I have with the WHO specification for how to monitor and interpret an OGTT - what happens between 0 and 120 minutes seems to vary hugely, with a truly non-diabetic person getting a small rise and a diabetic person getting a very big rise.

I took a home OGTT recently - my starting point was 6.1 and my end point was 10.6, suggesting I have 'impaired glucose tolerance' so I'd be classed as the same as Paul - I'd start in the green and end in the yellow in the graph above. But because I measured every 20 minutes I know I had a horrendous spike, reaching nearly 18 mmol/l at 60 minutes.
Well spotted.
 
Just looked at the trailer for the show and the blurb associated it mentions nothing about diabetes.

It look's like a disappointing attempt to show the only way to lose weight is a crash diet (hence the title) and giving up "real food" for diet shakes (going to assume low fat diet shakes).

All the 4 people are aloud for 9 weeks is, liquid only soup and diet shakes 800 calories per day.

IF you starve fat people they will lose weight.
It's hardly rocket science. :meh:
:bag:
Not necessarily - a few years ago I went on a 800 cal per day diet for about 2 months and lost the grand total of 7lbs. However it made me very ill as my metabolism went into starvation mode and my body started shutting down. When I went to my GP he told me to go home and have a good meal. He also sent me to a specialist who told me that I could blame my metabolism for my weight and I had two choices - slim and dead or eat healthily and stay as I was - needless to say I decided to do the latter!
 
After thinking about it a bit last night and this morning, I've realised I'm now livid about that program and its presentation of diabetes, particularly surrounding the OGTT graph I took the screen grab of.

It's bizarre that the two dots were connected with a line. It's also bizarre that the three coloured bands in the background are the same all the way across - the good, medium and bad zones should be different for the start and end of the test.

Anyway that's just a minor thing which makes me seriously question the 'expert' who produced and interpreted that graph.

Far more importantly, this morning, all around Britain, not only lump-heads, but also decent intelligent people, will believe that "all you have to do to cure diabetes is go on a crash diet for 9 weeks." The BBC has told them so via medical experts in this programme.

But as far as I'm concerned all we really saw with Paul was a party trick.

Re the OGTT, he'd been in constant calorie deficit for a long time and had a fasting blood glucose of just over 4. I can do that with 3 days of the same calorie deficit or fasting. If I really put my mind to it I could probably get there in 24 hours. And his postprandial increment in an OGTT is pretty much the same as mine - it's 4mmol/l higher at 2 hours. So had I took my OGTT starting at 4 rather than 6, it's reasonable to expect I'd have been at about 8 rather than 10, 2 hours later. Either way the WHO classification system puts me and Paul in the same boat even as things stand.

So there's no reason to believe that there's any great difference between Paul and Me. But Paul's been told he's no longer diabetic and the nation has been told that he's no longer diabetic.

But what if he's like me? Someone losing sensation in his fingers and toes. Someone who only needs to live normally for a few days - go on a walk at the weekend and eat normally afterwards, gaining just a couple of pounds and getting fasting readings right back up in the 9s rather than 4s as a result? Someone who can't have a slice of normal toast without getting a damaging blood sugar spike? Someone who even needs to think carefully about how much milk he puts in his tea? Someone who gets a horrible blood sugar rise during an OGTT?

I think Paul has been lied to, and the nation has been lied to. Is this incompetence and misunderstanding on the part of the medical people in the program, or is this a deliberate distortion of data in order to back up a particular world-view?

I get really annoyed when the Newcastle Diet approach for treating T2 is misrepresented in a negative way, and now I'm equally annoyed that it's been misrepresented in a positive way.

What happened to basic competence with understanding numbers, presenting graphs in a meaningful way, and interpreting simple tests like an OGTT?

I think scientific inquiry is at its best when carried out by competent people with child-like wonder about how the universe works, but what we saw last night was possibly an inquiry carried out by incompetent people who are more interested in proving the world works the way they already thought it did.

Livid.

I need a cup of tea.
 
After thinking about it a bit last night and this morning, I've realised I'm now livid about that program and its presentation of diabetes, particularly surrounding the OGTT graph I took the screen grab of.

It's bizarre that the two dots were connected with a line. It's also bizarre that the three coloured bands in the background are the same all the way across - the good, medium and bad zones should be different for the start and end of the test.

Anyway that's just a minor thing which makes me seriously question the 'expert' who produced and interpreted that graph.

Far more importantly, this morning, all around Britain, not only lump-heads, but also decent intelligent people, will believe that "all you have to do to cure diabetes is go on a crash diet for 9 weeks." The BBC has told them so via medical experts in this programme.

But as far as I'm concerned all we really saw with Paul was a party trick.

Re the OGTT, he'd been in constant calorie deficit for a long time and had a fasting blood glucose of just over 4. I can do that with 3 days of the same calorie deficit or fasting. If I really put my mind to it I could probably get there in 24 hours. And his postprandial increment in an OGTT is pretty much the same as mine - it's 4mmol/l higher at 2 hours. So had I took my OGTT starting at 4 rather than 6, it's reasonable to expect I'd have been at about 8 rather than 10, 2 hours later. Either way the WHO classification system puts me and Paul in the same boat even as things stand.

So there's no reason to believe that there's any great difference between Paul and Me. But Paul's been told he's no longer diabetic and the nation has been told that he's no longer diabetic.

But what if he's like me? Someone losing sensation in his fingers and toes. Someone who only needs to live normally for a few days - go on a walk at the weekend and eat normally afterwards, gaining just a couple of pounds and getting fasting readings right back up in the 9s rather than 4s as a result? Someone who can't have a slice of normal toast without getting a damaging blood sugar spike? Someone who even needs to think carefully about how much milk he puts in his tea? Someone who gets a horrible blood sugar rise during an OGTT?

I think Paul has been lied to, and the nation has been lied to. Is this incompetence and misunderstanding on the part of the medical people in the program, or is this a deliberate distortion of data in order to back up a particular world-view?

I get really annoyed when the Newcastle Diet approach for treating T2 is misrepresented in a negative way, and now I'm equally annoyed that it's been misrepresented in a positive way.

What happened to basic competence with understanding numbers, presenting graphs in a meaningful way, and interpreting simple tests like an OGTT?

I think scientific inquiry is at its best when carried out by competent people with child-like wonder about how the universe works, but what we saw last night was possibly an inquiry carried out by incompetent people who are more interested in proving the world works the way they already thought it did.

Livid.

I need a cup of tea.

Watch the milk
 
I thought it was a very badly presented programme. I did shout at the television when he was told that he was cured of T2, when obviously he was pre-diabetic, or I have not read that graph properly. I have achieved non-diabetic numbers by LCHF with no hunger but have been a bit stupid lately and my weigh has increased by 7lbs, easily done. I have been having olives with olive oil about 2 tablespoons so whether that has increased the weight, I don't know. Back on the wagon.
 
Back
Top