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

The one show discussion

Tannith said:
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.
Click to expand...

I tried it, it didn't work. In my opinion it was easy to stick to. It is so hard when you have followed the diet and realise that it hasn't worked. In fact it did me harm by slowing down my metabolism so that weight loss became even harder.

Please consider doing an OGTT for yourself as well as for others on here. It would really prove that you have reversed your diabetes rather than merely controlled it like the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
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...
We’ve just not had time to evolve to adapt to today’s unhealthy food environment. Cheap, fatty carbage is everywhere, smells amazing when you pass the outlet, and unless you’re super disciplined can be impossible to resist. Especially if you’re hungry at the time. Food is made to look and smell so tempting, and is artificially cheap compared to making a healthy meal at home, with no prep or washing up required.

It’s not often I’m glad for my allergies to meat and dairy, but it makes it practically impossible to eat takeaways and convenience food, as there is nearly always something I’m allergic to. And where I live, there aren’t many opportunities for veggie/pescatarian junk food. My only real challenge is the fish and chip shop a few doors away, but I can just take the batter off the fish and have it with mayonnaise when the rest of the fam are having F&C :)
 
Last edited:
bulkbiker said:
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...
Click to expand...
or the genes were there, but it needed the dietary change to trigger them?
 
@Tannith,

I don't get it. You've made another lengthy post, but have completely ignored the many times I've asked if you would take a glucose tolerance test. It's as if my posts have been invisible to you.

Would you be willing to do this or not? I thought you wanted to promote the ND, and somebody is being receptive to the idea, but you are ignoring that.

You've bemoaned that people don't seem to be willing to give a difficult thing a try, and said that not doing the ND because it might not work is like not taking an exam because you might not get an A.

Well, right back at you. All I'm asking is for 2 hours of your time, and it may help you promote the thing you think people should be doing. Are you going to give this a try or not?
 
Tannith said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.[/QUOTE]
I think you need to re-read the words you personally have used in your posts.

and the follow up responses to what you have stated.
 
Bluetit1802 said:
I scrape the batter off and put butter on it - but you can't do that either. Hug.
Click to expand...
I can put goats butter on it! It’s cow dairy that’s the problem, I can tolerate goat, sheep and buffalo stuff, so I still have butter & cheese, even if it’s a limited array. Got buffalo mozzarella in my arsenal, though :D as well as in my fridge! I may have squealed inappropriately when I found some blue goat cheese in a farm shop at Christmas...
 
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.[/QUOTE]

I really don't want to get into good or bad on ND, each to their own.
For me it is the same as LC, just a more extreme version of, it's a shock treatment.
It's the "getting rid of DB as long as the person doesn’t regain the weight", which is tricky as this leads back to how you manage your life.... and would suggest, it never goes away.
I've not seen the 10 years quote before, I thought ND was a relatively recent study.
 
Lets talk about cows. I come from a long line of dairy farmers.

There are cattle called 'good-dooers' round here. They thrive on less food, put on weight easily and sell well at market.

Now, lets think about humans. Through the ages, the 'good-doo-ers' have survived illness and famine. So have lived to pass on their genes. Its a good thing to be a 'good-do-er'

except in these days of processed food. Its the food which has changed, not us. WHEAT especially, both in its composition and nutrients. Also, why is the hormonal affect of soya flour etc in everything being ignored by the professionals? its know for its affect on our hormones, and insulin is a hormone.
 
hankjam said:
I've not seen the 10 years quote before, I thought ND was a relatively recent study.
Click to expand...
when you read the report, the 10 years refers to the length of time someone has been diabetic. It means that ND can work for someone up to 10 years after diagnosis (although later studies purport to have lengthened that time) and not the length of time we allegedly go into remission.

I posted a quote from the study upthread
 
Crash diets may give spectacular results in the short term. Is is a matter of being able to maintain any appropriate weight loss and thus a stable weight long-term. We really need to see the guy for a review program in one year or so.
 
crash diets mess with my metabolism and make me even less able to eat without putting weight on. I learned that lesson 30 years ago.
 
I wondered about Paul the Priest's rate of weight loss.

Wasn't it 3.5 stone in 9 weeks? So that's 49 pounds in 9 weeks, or an average of 5.4 pounds per week.

Some studies suggest you can't metabolise fat beyond a certain rate - much lower than that. And it's very hard to lose fat without losing muscle especially on a crash diet, so he will have been losing plenty of lean mass as well.

I'd be interested to know exactly what he was losing. His marbles? His religion?
 
lucylocket61 said:
crash diets mess with my metabolism and make me even less able to eat without putting weight on. I learned that lesson 30 years ago.
Click to expand...
Me too. I find it increasingly annoying that 'born again, first time dieters' come on here and think they have the answers for all of us.
 
AdamJames said:
I wondered about Paul the Priest's rate of weight loss.

Wasn't it 3.5 stone in 9 weeks? So that's 49 pounds in 9 weeks, or an average of 5.4 pounds per week.

Some studies suggest you can't metabolise fat beyond a certain rate - much lower than that. And it's very hard to lose fat without losing muscle especially on a crash diet, so he will have been losing plenty of lean mass as well.

I'd be interested to know exactly what he was losing. His marbles? His religion?
Click to expand...
Yes he probably was losing lean mass, which will make it very hard for him to maintain his weight in the future. We have been warned about crash diets for many years. I can't understand why Professor Taylor thinks they are a good idea now. They have always worked short term, it's the long term problems they create that bother me.
 
Hi Zand,
He thinks it's similar to bariatric surgery.
But I would have thought that is the last resort.

Until our kind of diets become main stream we will get all sorts of cures thrown around.

Some of these science guys keep to the mainstream and keep their funding.
Basically his shakes are a shrunken eat well! :)
regards
Derek
 
What I have been trying in vain to say is that Prof Taylor's METHOD ie getting the fat off the liver and pancreas to reverse diabetes works, and it works for as long as the subject keeps the fat off. Not necessarily by using a shakes Diet . But I am trying to say that it is grossly unfair to blame Prof Taylor or imply his METHOD doesn't work just because many of his subjects are unwilling or unable to stick to either the initial diet or the refeeding/follow up arrangements. That is to do with human failure not the failure of the pancreatic/liver fat theory. That is not a jibe at anyone.
 
Last edited:
zand said:
Me too. I find it increasingly annoying that 'born again, first time dieters' come on here and think they have the answers for all of us.
Click to expand...

Maybe first time dieters have the newest information
 
Tannith said:
What I have been trying in vain to say is that Prof Taylor's METHOD ie getting the fat off the liver and pancreas to reverse diabetes works, and it works for as long as the subject keeps the fat off. Not necessarily by using a shakes Diet . But I am trying to say that it is grossly unfair to blame Prof Taylor or imply his METHOD doesn't work just because many of his subjects are unwilling or unable to stick to either the initial diet or the refeeding/follow up arrangements. That is to do with human failure not the failure of the pancreatic/liver fat theory. That is not a jibe at anyone.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with that.
 
Back
Top