https://pressreleases.responsesourc...n-supports-dieters-in-new-bbc-tv-documentary/How do you know the programme content before it is aired?
PS: fromt he linked page:How do you know the programme content before it is aired?
can be an extraordinarily successful way of losing weight and improving obesity-related health conditions including Type 2 diabetes and osteoarthritis.
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.
Thanks, what I meant was we cannot know the full picture until after the whole tv programme has been seen.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.
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.
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.
He did say at the start he loved a roast dinner, hopefully he’s cut out the carbs!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!
There is nothing special about “The Newcastle diet” these diet shakes were on the market for many decades before Prof Taylor did his research.
Well spotted.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.
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!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.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?