The one show discussion

[AdamJames]

And he mostly lost his diabetes. Very well done Paul. If someone so fat can do it, it bodes well for the rest of us.

Do you really feel sure he mostly lost his diabetes?

All I saw with regards to his metabolic health after 9 weeks on the diet was the he gets a very similar result to me in an oral glucose tolerance test. For his sake, I hope what was going on between 0 and 2 hours was much better than what happens to me, but we don't know. Are you curious to know? I certainly am. I find the lack of data very frustrating.

I totally share your congratulations for Paul, he did very well as did they all and I believe they were all likely to be much healthier people by the end of the 9 weeks. They certainly seemed happier.

I'm not sure I agree that it's more encouraging than normal to see a particularly overweight person improve their metabolism through a large amount of weight loss. Assuming what is going on inside is what Roy Taylor thinks is going on inside, then one might expect better results with very overweight people - they can afford to spend a long time draining their overall body fat while draining the pancreatic fat. I think there are plenty of normal weight T2s who find it quite frustrating and would be more encouraged to see a thin person restore their metabolism via a tiny amount of weight loss.

 

[Guzzler]

You are doing it again.... saying if Paul can do it the rest of us can. Not so. We are all different, what works for one won't work for another. Like I said earlier, I am pleased the ND worked for you, but It doesn't work for everyone. It's great that you are sharing your success but please don't think the ND will help everyone. Not sure why you think reversing diabetes is harder for someone 'so fat' either. Sounds like you are fat shaming Paul. It's wonderful that you have found what helps you but it would be good if you could be a little less evangelical/fanatical about it.

I agree about the 'so fat' comment. Almost as if the lighter one is the more one is allowed to judge. An unfortunate phrase in my opinion.

 

[Tannith]

Sounds like you are fat shaming Paul.

Don't be ridiculous!! I am brimming with admiration for him. I know how hard he must have worked to lose all that weight in so little time. The more you have to lose the harder it is. And usually, though not in his case, the longer it takes. I can't praise him enough. I find it insulting of you to say I am "fat shaming" him.

 

[lucylocket61]

Don't be ridiculous!! I am brimming with admiration for him. I know how hard he must have worked to lose all that weight in so little time. The more you have to lose the harder it is. And usually, though not in his case, the longer it takes. I can't praise him enough. I find it insulting of you to say I am "fat shaming" him.

please take on board that the way you phrase things is not helpful. Learn from the reactions you are getting. And calling someone ridiculous is not acceptable either, its close to a personal attack, it is certainly demeaning and patronising to use such terminology.

we are a community, here to support one another. Learning how to phrase our comments is part of the learning process in forums. Sometimes we get it wrong, but usually we learn form our mistakes, apologise and try to change our wording and attitudes. I am concerned that you seem to neither be learning acceptable phraseology, or be willing to learn.

It would be helpful for you to also to broaden your understanding of the many difference and challenges people have on here, and respect and accept their different approaches and solutions.

 

[Tannith]

please take on board that the way you phrase things is not helpful. Learn from the reactions you are getting. And calling someone ridiculous is not acceptable either, its close to a personal attack, it is certainly demeaning and patronising to use such terminology.

we are a community, here to support one another. Learning how to phrase our comments is part of the learning process in forums. Sometimes we get it wrong, but usually we learn form our mistakes, apologise and try to change our wording and attitudes. I am concerned that you seem to neither be learning acceptable phraseology, or be willing to learn.

It would be helpful for you to also to broaden your understanding of the many difference and challenges people have on here, and respect and accept their different approaches and solutions.

It IS ridiculous to try to prevent the use of the word "fat" by falsely accusing someone of fat shaming.The word was used in its proper context, to praise the guy not to be derogatory in any way. It was a deliberate personal attack on ME to call it fat shaming when that was patently a lie. I am allowed to defend myself against false and inflammatory allegations.
It is clear that the consensus on here is that most people are absolutely furious at Prof Taylor's discovery that T2 is caused by fat on the pancreas and liver and can be reversed in the newly diagnosed by sticking to a diet that removes that fat. It is a scientific discovery - and one that has been a breakthrough in the treatment of diabetes. Don't shoot the messenger. It is news, facts, science, not something I made up. Obviously it enrages people who don't want to diet but that is not my problem or Prof Taylor's. Nobody is making you diet. It is there for you if you want it.
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/archive/2017/09/type2diabetesisreversible/
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/36/4/1047

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160322080542.htm:

 

[zand]

It is clear that the consensus on here is that most people are absolutely furious at Prof Taylor's discovery that T2 is caused by fat on the pancreas and liver and can be reversed in the newly diagnosed by sticking to a diet that removes that fat.

I am the one who mentioned fat shaming, so I am taking this reply as meant for me as well as others.

Again you are twisting things. I told you I was pleased that the ND works for you. That doesn't sound like I am furious at Professor's Taylor's discovery.

Obviously it enrages people who don't want to diet but that is not my problem or Prof Taylor's. Nobody is making you diet. It is there for you if you want it.

I have done the diet. It didn't work! I have said this before. Why don't you listen?

LCHF can also remove the fat from the pancreas and liver * (and whilst consuming more calories than the 800 allowed by the ND.) This is the method which worked for me when the ND failed. My T2 is also in remission.

I and others have listened to your point of view and accepted it. You are the one who won't even entertain the fact that what we say may have some credibility too. I won't be engaging in discussion with you any more, communication has to be 2-way.

Edited to add phrase shown by *

​

 

[Juicyj]

Can I ask all members again to refrain from making personal attacks on this thread ?

If anyone persists then this thread will be moderated and closed, this is your final warning.

 

[Pipp]

I agree with zand in that for any advancement of understanding we need to be less rigid in our clinging to beliefs and opinions, and more willing to consider that other people also have knowledge to share. To make this, or indeed any discussion a polemic argument prevents learning.

 

[Pipp]

I have only just been able to view the TV programme in question.
My brief appraisal...
The producers made the content fit the message they were trying to convey. In this instance the message was that very low calorie liquid diets will be a 'cure all' for obesity. Also that obesity was the cause of the different health problems of the four participants. I take issue with that. Particularly for the man who is T2diabetic.

There were positives: each of them lost substantial amounts of weight, and the woman with the enlarged heart saw great improvement through losing the weight and adjusting portion size. The man with diabetes saw improved blood glucose levels. The two women with food 'addictions' claimed they had conquered them. They were all looking much healthier, and much happier at the end.
Negatives; I was concerned about the psychological causes of the obvious disordered attitude to food of the woman who had already had the gastric band intervention, also the toast binge behaviour of the other woman. I don't think the programme showed that their issues had been adequately dealt with. The most obvious one of interest to us here is that of the man with diabetes. I agree that it is very misleading to state he had reversed his diabetes, following the OGTT, and viewers who don't do their own reading and research will believe the diet is simple and will work for everyone. That could lead to the attitude that already prevails in the tabloid media generally, that all fat people need to do is a simple 9 weeks of VLCD and the problem will be solved. Could lead to even more fat shaming.

It would be interesting to see how the participants in the TV programme are getting on after another year or so. It was not clear whether they are to have continued support to help with dietary choices and any psychological issues. The meal they had at the end didn't look to be carb laden, but it would be useful to know what they were advised to eat afterwards.

Ok, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. On a more personal level, despite the misgivings, as an alternative to bariatric surgery, Prof Taylor's methodology was an acceptable solution for me. It has been the only way I have been able to lose weight, and I managed to 'reverse' my T 2 and have remained in that reversal, since 2011. To be clear, I regard reversal as being below the diagnostic for pre-diabetes. In the early days, I was quite evangelical about it. It is so easy when you have been successful at something to have the 'If I can do it , so can anyone'. Yet if we stop and think about it, this is such a demoralising statement to make, particularly when the other person is struggling to find the solution for them. No single method of weight loss or diabetes management is going to suit everyone. We each have to find our own way, but not make the assumption that way will work for everyone.

As an aside. I am beginning to think that after 7 years 'reversal' of T2 I could be about to reverse the reversal. Steroid meds and still having much weight to lose has had a detrimental effect on BG levels. I am seriously considering, in the interest of science and to inform members, emulating the TV programme and embarking on a 9 week VLCD of my own. Will start a thread about it if I do.

 

[zand]

@Pipp Each paragraph of your above post deserves a 'winner star', it's a shame I could only give you one.

I sincerely hope you manage to stop T2 in its tracks again. You deserve to do so. I will follow your progress with interest.

 

[Pipp]

@Pipp Each paragraph of your above post deserves a 'winner star', it's a shame I could only give you one.

I sincerely hope you manage to stop T2 in its tracks again. You deserve to do so. I will follow your progress with interest.

Thank you zand. I think we all deserve to find a way. Whatever that is and no matter what others think.

I still haven't had a dodgy HbA1c so all is not lost. A few months of seeing higher BG than I like, and a HbA1c test on the near horizon.

Just wanted to make the point that we are in it for the long haul, and, having been diagnosed 15 years ago, have gone through phases of believing I was doomed to progressive problems, had no alternative to bariatric surgery, had found the holy grail of ND believing that to be the answer for every T2, embracing LCHF with too much of the HF, intermittent fasting, I am open to considering and trying other methods. I am not going to disparage anything that doesn't work for me personally, because it would be wrong to discourage someone else from trying to find their own way through it all.

I am very grateful that I am 15 years into my T2 and probably had been T2 for a few years prior to diagnosis, without having had complications to date. It is possible that I will ask for Metformin again if the next HbA1c shows I have strayed beyond the cut off of 41. Like (I hope) everyone here, I am happy when we get a report of someone doing well, by whatever method they choose, but it grieves me when anyone suggests theirs is the only way, or that someone else's way is wrong, because we can lose sight of the fact that we are all, after all, on the same side in the battle.

 

[zand]

Thank you zand. I think we all deserve to find a way. Whatever that is and no matter what others think.

I still haven't had a dodgy HbA1c so all is not lost. A few months of seeing higher BG than I like, and a HbA1c test on the near horizon.

Just wanted to make the point that we are in it for the long haul, and, having been diagnosed 15 years ago, have gone through phases of believing I was doomed to progressive problems, had no alternative to bariatric surgery, had found the holy grail of ND believing that to be the answer for every T2, embracing LCHF with too much of the HF, intermittent fasting, I am open to considering and trying other methods. I am not going to disparage anything that doesn't work for me personally, because it would be wrong to discourage someone else from trying to find their own way through it all.

I am very grateful that I am 15 years into my T2 and probably had been T2 for a few years prior to diagnosis, without having had complications to date. It is possible that I will ask for Metformin again if the next HbA1c shows I have strayed beyond the cut off of 41. Like (I hope) everyone here, I am happy when we get a report of someone doing well, by whatever method they choose, but it grieves me when anyone suggests theirs is the only way, or that someone else's way is wrong, because we can lose sight of the fact that we are all, after all, on the same side in the battle.

Another great post! Good luck with the metformin, my GP won't prescribe it unless my HbA1c is in the 50s. I hope yours is more reasonable and understanding.

 

[Pipp]

Another great post! Good luck with the metformin, my GP won't prescribe it unless my HbA1c is in the 50s. I hope yours is more reasonable and understanding.

Mine wanted me to stay on Metformin a few years ago, even after several non diabetic HbA1c tests, as he said there are other advantages. In my arrogance, wanting to be off as many meds as possible, I refused.

 

[AdamJames]

I agree that it is very misleading to state he had reversed his diabetes, following the OGTT,

One thing I learned during the course of this thread, after I went on a rant about it being very misleading to say he had reversed his diabetes, is that if you go by the WHO standards then he has. His diabetes is "gone".

The WHO do not support the HbA1c test or the term 'pre-diabetes'. They use the OGTT test, and you are only classed as diabetic beyond a certain threshold. Below that threshold they regard it as unhelpful to use the term pre-diabetic or even to mention the word diabetes.

The lack of consistency in diagnosis criteria, the lack of detail in an OGTT, and the lack of data from the DiRECT study are all extremely frustrating.

Just consider Paul. He goes to see Roy Taylor, and Roy Taylor will have the perspective of the DiRECT study - he uses the HbA1c test for his measuring stick, which includes categories such as "pre-diabetic". But then later Paul goes for an OGTT, and is told that he does not have diabetes. The nation is told that he does not have diabetes. Technically he has "Impaired Glucose Tolerance".

But I know full well, as someone who also, like Paul, falls into the "Impaired Glucose Tolerance" bracket in an OGTT, that I am fully diabetic. I can't eat a slice of bread without a horrible spike, and I regularly have a fasting blood sugar over 9 mmol/l recently.

To add to the chaos of the different tests, I don't think either of them are detailed enough. I now know that I can get an HbA1c of 47, and be classed as "doing well" even with regular fasting readings of over 9. And I now know that I am "not diabetic", but merely have "impaired glucose tolerance" even though during an OGTT my blood sugar nearly hits 18 mmol/l.

It's a mess and all needs sorting out. It just goes to show that there is no more powerful approach for management than our home glucose meters to e.g. check what foods we can eat.

Anyway good luck with your upcoming HbA1c. If you do decide to go on another VLCD I look forward to reading your account.

 

[ringi]

We must remember that at the start of the program it said that these diets were only an option for people with a high BMI who needed to lose at least two stones, hence not targeting everyone with type2.

They make clear towards the end of the program that the surport people get with reintroducing real food is key, and it seems to have work as everyone lost more weight after finishing the diet. I just don't trust that anyone other then in a research setting or being filmed for TV would get that level of surport.....

Therefor I like the LCHF option much more as each meal can be a separate win, proved by the BG meter, hence a lot easier for people who are not getting a high level of surport.

 

[ringi]

On a positive note if a diet 'only' results in someone getting normal BG for 15 years, then it is great as most complications of diabetes happen after many years of poor BG control.

 

[first14808]

The WHO do not support the HbA1c test or the term 'pre-diabetes'. They use the OGTT test, and you are only classed as diabetic beyond a certain threshold. Below that threshold they regard it as unhelpful to use the term pre-diabetic or even to mention the word diabetes.

The lack of consistency in diagnosis criteria, the lack of detail in an OGTT, and the lack of data from the DiRECT study are all extremely frustrating.

I think that's due to pragmatism. An OGTT may be a better indicator, but administering it would mean scheduling patients to come in, drink the glucose and then test/monitor over 2hrs. And to make it more challenging, they'd need to be morning appointments. By comparison, an HbA1c's a simple blood draw that can be done at a routine appointment or statin sales session. I mean routine screening. So I think in the UK, everyone over 40 is supposed to get an HbA1c as part of routine screening. And there may be benefits for doing it earlier.

And as we know, early intervention is best, especially if it prevents long term damage to the pancreas, along with damage done by increased insulin resistance. But that also comes with costs, ie better nutritional advice and support for patients, especially those that may be struggling to adjust.. Or not responding to the Eatwell diet.

For me, it's still the media's response to ND. I don't see it as a pancreatic panacea, simply as a useful part of a metabolic toolbox to manage patients. Especially if it means fairly drastic procedures like bariatric surgery could be avoided, because any surgery comes with risks. I'm also curious how the program will approach LCHF as the BBC's previously called that a 'fad diet'.

 

[zand]

s an aside. I am beginning to think that after 7 years 'reversal' of T2 I could be about to reverse the reversal. Steroid meds and still having much weight to lose has had a detrimental effect on BG levels. I am seriously considering, in the interest of science and to inform members, emulating the TV programme and embarking on a 9 week VLCD of my own. Will start a thread about it if I do.

I am a little envious that this is an option for you. So tempted to try it myself. The reason I won't is one I have posted on this forum before. I will post it again so that others on this thread who may not have read it before can understand my reasons.

11 years ago my teenage son and I caught flu, we didn't eat anything at all for 5/6 days and then the next 5/6 days ate very little (200 cals with perhaps 400 on the last day.) My son, who wasn't overweight to start with, lost 11 and a half pounds. I was morbidly obese and only lost half a pound. It was then that I ( a serial dieter) realised that to keep cutting calories to lose weight was the wrong thing for me personally to do. So I focussed on trying to become healthy instead. I have done some (maybe 3) vlc diets since then (we never learn do we?!) to hopefully shift a few pounds but to no avail. I now try to do my metabolism a favour and eat at least 1200 cals a day (no maximum). I don't want to go back to the bad old days of thinking that the less calories I eat the more weight I would lose. It didn't work out like that for me. For me low carbing (in various forms/diets) is the answer.

 

[first14808]

I think the issue is still perhaps oversimplification. So taking wiki's definition of a calorie:-

The first, the small calorie, or gram calorie (symbol: cal), is defined as the approximate amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere

*

And I remember testing this in school with the good'ol bomb calirometers. But the problem with suggesting we cut calories is that not all calories are equal. So if we ate 2,500cal of sugar, that would be metabolised differently than if we ate 2,500cal of grass. And grass is also high-carb.. but we can't digest it. So eat things that can. But it's also true that if we eat fewer calories than we expend, we'll lose weight, but potentially the wrong weight, ie muscle instead of fat. It's why I think picking and ditching 'bad' calories is more important to sustain weight, or weight loss.

*So as we're mostly water, and need to maintain ourselves at around 37C.. I'm apparently 53.1kg of water, so if I sat in a freezer at 0C**, I'd need to burn a convenient 2,000kcal to maintain my body temperature. And I guess modern living with central heating means we're burning fewer calories the lazy way.

**Don't try this at home.

 

[zand]

*So as we're mostly water, and need to maintain ourselves at around 37C.. I'm apparently 53.1kg of water, so if I sat in a freezer at 0C**, I'd need to burn a convenient 2,000kcal to maintain my body temperature. And I guess modern living with central heating means we're burning fewer calories the lazy way.

I did get hypothermia a couple of years ago - and lost a few pounds as a result. Not something I would like to do again though.