If you replay the tape you will see that the priest was told when he came out of the second "after" pancreatic scan that his diabetes was not quite yet gone and that he had in fact another one percent of fat to lose off his pancreas before his diabetes would be gone. Prof Taylor himself said this, and also that he would need to continue the diet for "about another week"@Tannith,
I just realised when I wrote that the red line in the graph belongs to someone who is deemed in remission ... in fact, according to the DiRECT study, BOTH lines belong to someone who is deemed to be in remission. This shows just how unhelpful sweeping statements like 'diabetes gone' are. It also shows how overlooking detail and nuances can cause bad feeling.
This documentary will promote your stated view, that all anyone has to do is a simple process for 8 weeks and they are cured. But then there's reality.
1% - its that critical a line between success and failure? well, i somehow doubt that the priest has said goodbye to his critical mass of pancreatic fat forever, so that very quote shows that its a snapshot success at best, not a cure at all.his diabetes was not quite yet gone and that he had in fact another one percent of fat to lose off his pancreas before his diabetes would be gone.
"unhelpful sweeping statements like 'diabetes gone"
Here is the longer version to which I provide a link to save space. It id pity no one bothered to read it. "Over 8 weeks, the raised pancreas fat content fell and normal first phase insulin secretion became re-established, with normal plasma glucose control." -"they have reversed their type 2 diabetes and continued to have normal glucose levels (normoglycaemic) over years. - "Type 2 diabetes remains reversible for up to 10 years in most people, and also that the normal metabolism persists long term, as long as the person doesn’t regain the weight. I think " diabetes gone" is a reasonable abbreviation for the quotation "normoglycaemic over years" Perhaps people are picking on the semantics because they don't like the idea of a simple diet getting rid of diabetes. And not e I said "simple, not of course "easy"
'the diabetes remains reversible for up to 10years'Forgive me, how can they predict normoglycaemia for ten years when the trials have been going for only four or five years?
If you replay the tape you will see that the priest was told when he came out of the second "after" pancreatic scan that his diabetes was not quite yet gone and that he had in fact another one percent of fat to lose off his pancreas before his diabetes would be gone. Prof Taylor himself said this, and also that he would need to continue the diet for "about another week"
'the diabetes remains reversible for up to 10years'
do they mean that up to 10 years after diagnosis it can be reversed by this method perhaps? But, like you, I do wonder how they know the long term benefit of this.
I am pretty confident that if i maintained by weight by eating only 4 x 100g of milk chocolate a day and drinking only water, my diabetes will return even if my weight doesnt.
providing you dont exceed your daily calorie allowance for a stable healthy weight and thus a happy pancreas, the choice is yours my friend : )))))Perhaps the programme was so heavily edited that Prof. Taylor's information was cut to the point of ambiguity (esp. with regard to hyperglycaemia). Anyhoo, please tell me more about the 'Cadbury Diet'. Does it allow for the caramel or the fruit and nut versions?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160322080542.htm this is one of the studies @tanith linked to. but its only 2 years old
P S I checked again about the 10 year thing and it does mean best results if less than 10 years after diagnosis.Perhaps the programme was so heavily edited that Prof. Taylor's information was cut to the point of ambiguity (esp. with regard to hyperglycaemia). Anyhoo, please tell me more about the 'Cadbury Diet'. Does it allow for the caramel or the fruit and nut versions?
didnt you know tablets are bad for you? Anyay, I had better stop this nonsense and return to the topic post haste : )Sadly, my old tablet says 'Cannot make a se ure connection' on that link.
P S I checked again about the 10 year thing and it does mean best results if less than 10 years after diagnosis.
I am pretty confident that if i maintained by weight by eating only 4 x 100g of milk chocolate a day and drinking only water, my diabetes will return even if my weight doesnt.
Ah, thank you.
In this new study, 30 volunteers with Type 2 diabetes embarked on the same diet of 600 to 700 calories a day. Participants lost on average 14 kilograms -- just over 2 stone. Over the next 6 months they did not regain any weight.
The group included many people with longer duration diabetes, defined as more than 8 years and ranging up to 23 years.
Overall, 12 patients who had had diabetes for less than 10 years reversed their condition. 6 months later they remained diabetes free. In fact, after 6 months a thirteenth patient had reversed their diabetes.
Though the volunteers lost weight they remained overweight or obese but they had lost enough weight to remove the fat out of the pancreas and allow normal insulin production.
Professor Roy Taylor said: "What we have shown is that it is possible to reverse your diabetes, even if you have had the condition for a long time, up to around 10 years. If you have had the diagnosis for longer than that, then don't give up hope -- major improvement in blood sugar control is possible.
I've found an interesting relationship between calories, carbs and blood sugar levels that's always held true for me every time I've put it to the test:
If I'm on very low calories, I can eat lots of carbs and get low fasting blood sugars. But if I'm on high calories, enough to cause weight gain, then I get high fasting readings even if on low carbs.
So I'd bet that I could get a great HbA1c by eating a lot of carbs provided the calories were low and I'd been losing weight for three months before the HbA1c test. But I'd almost certainly be damaging myself along the way because each input of food would cause horrible big spikes, because I'm diabetic.
I also read a post somewhere, not on this forum, where someone said they'd greatly improved their average blood sugar by eating nothing but 150 grams of table sugar each day for a week or so. It sounds like a crazy thing to do, but based on my own experience I believe him.
Anyway that's just me and my observations. I don't want it to sound like I'm contradicting you because I quoted you, it was just relevant to what you'd posted. Just goes to show that we all have different metabolisms.
the above is a direct quote from the link I posted, about the 2016 trial.
interesting stuff. I just wonder, if, for example, one was to eat 800 cals a day, all of it carbs, that would be 200g a day? so far less than many people eat, and around the amount given in the eatwell plate recommendations.
And assuming that you would only eat about half those calories as carbs, then you are on low carbing territory (under 120g of carbs a day) by default.
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?