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

The one show discussion


Near! I hadn't thought about a DIY approach to an OGTT, but I have enough test strips and a timer to give it a go. I guess one caveat might be the accuracy of typical glucometers, but if they're consistently inaccurate, the shape of the graph should still give an interesting indication.
 
Last edited:

Ah. Ok.. I'm afraid that's triggered my cynicometer. 1% is often like 97%, especially when it comes to things like certainty or uncertainty. Sounds good until you look at the data, and especially error bars. So for example, here's another study picked mostly because it's the first one Bing found and is well-cited. Plus the author's uploaded it so it's not behind a paywall:-

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ography_according_to_the_duration_of_diabetes

And look at Table 2 on P.11 where it summarises pancreatic volume, fat volume and fat percentage. So their 'Normal' mean pancreas was 66.3cm^3, and pancreatic fat only 1.9cm^3.. But also look at the SD, which shows a pretty wide variation in both pancreatic & fat volume. There are very few normal people, we're all deviants in one way or another..

So losing 1% off their 'normal' pancreas would translate to only around a 0.02cm^3 difference in total fat volume. Which would be difficult to measure accurately. Prof Taylor's technique may rely on being able to more finely slice their patients digitally, or count pixels more accurately. But it's a small change to detect and suggest is the trigger level between being diabetic, or not.

But that's science, and why these studies get done. The Lim study's from 2014 and focused on Koreans, and as they note the variation in pancreas size based on body size and diet, ours may be larger. Not that I'm suggesting Koreans have a small pancreas as I've had a lot of fun in Korea, and their food is awesome.

And there's a challenge in assessing pancreatic fat in general. Prof Taylor has specialist imaging systems to support his studies, most of the NHS does not. I'm also not saying this is bad science, all the data helps refine potential correlations and ways to manage diabetes.
 

I find your comments to be very harsh and upsetting. I am pleased that your body reacts 'as it should' to low cal diets. It isn't that easy for others though. It has never been my decision to get/stay fat. It's a battle I have been fighting for years. Yes I have done 800 cal diets and a 600 cal diet. No substantial weight loss with either. Sticking to a diet, any diet, is the easy part. What is hard is when you stick to that diet to the letter and it doesn't work for you.

Like others I can achieve non diabetic BG levels without losing a pound if I follow LCHF.

My most successful short term weight loss was with a Fat Fast. I consumed an average of around 2100 cals a day for 5 days and lost 6 pounds. It worked because it was extremely low carb. It had the added bonus of not slowing down my metabolism because it wasn't low cal. The thing I dislike about the ND is that it focuses on calories. Diabetics are carb intolerant so calories from fat are easier for the body to deal with.
 
If you are on a very low carb diet I understand that you need to have some higher carb meals for a while beforehand to make the test valid. I don't know the details unfortunately.
 

Let's also not forget the case of @AlcalaBob who tried the ND and posted his experiences in a thread here day by day. He couldn't get his weight below a certain level, I can't remember exactly, something like 97kg. He was injecting insulin and tried adjusting it, and was having a very hard time combining getting a half-decent fasting level with weight loss. I believe he went on for at least the full 8 weeks, and by the end wasn't feeling great.

Anyway it just goes to show that sweeping statements and jibes about people not being willing to make the effort she did to make her diabetes evaporate are best ignored.
 
Tannith said:
I think not trying ND because it might not work is like not sitting an exam because not everyone gets an "A".
Click to expand...

Do you ever try to imagine being someone else and trying to understand why people do things differently to you? I'll give you some examples of why people might not want to try the ND:

* Crash diets don't have a good rep, because of the historical evidence.

* The definition of the ND "working" according to the DiRECT study is that it results in someone having an HbA1c of <48 mmol/l at one year after starting the diet. For some people, that's not good enough. Two reasons: 1) As I've demonstrated, you can be in regular damage territory blood sugar wise but still get an HbA1c of <48 mmol/l, and 2) Other methods seem to get better results. Lifelong LCHF eating being one.

I think you really need to stop with the jibes and the sweeping statements, you are not promoting anything in the way you think you are.
 
@Tannith,

I really think your best bet at promoting the ND is if you take a home OGTT and get good enough results to persuade someone else to try it. I've made the offer of sending you some Rapilose and committed to doing the ND for 8 weeks if you get good results.

It's a serious offer. It's not intended to "prove you aren't really cured" to use your term, it's because it would help me to make a decision to try the ND if it seems to have resulted in good glucose tolerance after you did it.

That data just doesn't seem to be available. It would have been nice if the DiRECT study took OGTTs, with readings at 20 minute intervals, before and 1 year after the ND, but it didn't. I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in seeing the OGTT graph of someone who has done the ND.
 
If it’s all about fat. Why are there obese people who are not diabetic?
 
rab5 said:
If it’s all about fat. Why are there obese people who are not diabetic?
Click to expand...

I'll give Roy Taylor's answer - I'm not saying I'm wedded to it, but:

It's not all about body fat, it's all about liver and more particularly pancreas fat. It can be said that people with T2 are genetically more prone to storing fat around the pancreas.

An experiment was carried out, where obese patients were about to have bariatric surgery. Half of them had T2, half of them didn't. The ones who weren't T2 had the same amount of pancreatic fat before and some time after surgery. The ones who were T2 had significantly reduced their pancreatic fat some time after surgery, and were deemed to be in remission from T2.
 
rab5 said:
If it’s all about fat. Why are there obese people who are not diabetic?
Click to expand...

I was listening to a geneticist conducting research into obesity the other night. He was saying that there are 200 genes linked to obesity. Some of them have an off-on switch but most have a dial. Apparently this means nothing because if we just cut calories as per ND we definitely lose weight thereby curing our Diabetes. That means that for all of us our switches and dials must be set in exactly the same way. The only reason that the diet could fail is if we havn't made the decision to lose weight or that we are namby pamby big girls blouses.
 
I don't think the pancreatic fat argument stands on its own.
There are thin diabetics who have very little subcutaneous fat and therefore cannot store blood glucose effectively.
There are obese people who have good insulin sensitivity and low insulin resistance.
D.
 

I think I know the mental state you were in when you were writing that. I've been doing quite a lot of breathing exercises while reading this thread
 
My question was meant to be rhetorical. FAIL!
 
Guzzler said:
I was listening to a geneticist conducting research into obesity the other night. He was saying that there are 200 genes linked to obesity. Some of them have an off-on switch but most have a dial
Click to expand...
Problems with all this genetics stuff is it doesn't explain the sudden rise in obesity that we have seen over the last 50 years or so.
We had far fewer obese people 50-60 years ago and I'm pretty sure that genes don;t change that quickly so it has to be something that has changed in the period maybe with people being genetically more susceptible to it. Which brings us back to that old chestnut of food...
 

I don't think it's likely that a change in the gene pool is responsible for the rise in obesity.

I think the genetic aspect just helps explain why some people fair much better than others when the food environment goes south.
 
AdamJames said:
I don't think it's likely that a change in the gene pool is responsible for the rise in obesity.

I think the genetic aspect just helps explain why some people fair much better than others when the food environment goes south.
Click to expand...
Happy to agree to that one..
 

I agree and the geneticist was saying the same. I was gratified to hear him say that calories in did not answer the whole problem either. It was the Prof. who was on that series with Hugh FW the other week.
 
Guzzler said:
I agree and the geneticist was saying the same. I was gratified to hear him say that calories in did not answer the whole problem either. It was the Prof. who was on that series with Hugh FW the other week.
Click to expand...
Oh ok there are however some geneticists who make wild claims about weight gain and genes without apparently being able to see that simple point..
 
bulkbiker said:
Oh ok there are however some geneticists who make wild claims about weight gain and genes without apparently being able to see that simple point..
Click to expand...

He commented that he was sometimes regarded by colleagues not involved in his field of study as giving the obese the excuse of 'bad' genes.
 
I think you really need to stop with the jibes and the sweeping statements, you are not promoting anything in the way you think you are.[/QUOTE]
I have already said that what you said was a sweeping statement ie "diabetes gone was just a"summary of Prof Taylor's own statements about the results of his research - or some of them: ""unhelpful sweeping statements like 'diabetes gone"
Here is the longer version to which I provided a link to save space. Its a 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 overyears" Perhaps people are picking on the semantics because they don't like the idea of a simple diet getting rid of diabetes. And note I said "simple, not of course "easy" As for jibes about people trying it I have certainly not made any. Hardly any one tries it because they decide in advance it won't work. I have repeatedly said how hard it is and how it is simple but definitely not easy. However comparede to a lifetime of diabetes anything is preferable in my opinion.
 
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.…