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

The Times; soup and shake diet

Sick of seeing this lose weight cure your T2 rubbish, if it was that easy I’d have been “cured” 10 years ago. It doesn’t work for everyone and perpetuates the myth that being fat causes T2 diabetes. I’ve lost a whole overweight person in weight (now over 12 st) and I’m still a raging T2 who has to keep carbs below 20g AND count calories. Fed up of it.

As a side note my friend who is 6ft 12st wet through, 20 years in the army, runs, wild swims, paddle boards, cycles. Totally fit, guess what? Just been diagnosed T2. It is not down to weight that people get T2
 
I get so annoyed by these articles (don't take my blood pressure now!). It would be so much easier to manage our ILLNESS if it were accepted (for T2) that it's the diabetes that causes the weight gain, not the weight gain that causes the diabetes. But so much easier to perpetuate the myth that it's all our fault, greedy indulgent gannets that we are for eating our way into T2 and costing the NHS money. Pah!

I wonder what the soup is like for carbs and other diabetic-unfriendly ingredients?
 
Jam&Scones said:
This got sent to me earlier: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...a?shareToken=751994ef80cb03d3da0154c72c544265

Standard nhs line - lose weight, go into remission. As we know it’s the diet driving this rather than the weight
Click to expand...
Well, it fits with the present dogma so you can see why it's supported. And there's money to be made out of the soups and shakes, etc.

I do think it's possible for this approach to be useful for some people, and if it works for them, fine. I'd argue that an 800 calorie daily intake is going by definition to be a low - or at least reduced - carb intake. Even if the diet was 100% carb (and it isn't), then that's 200g carb maximum, which is probably going to be a reduction for many people.

The story does not make it entirely clear that after five years 23%, of 36%, of 298 subjects, were still in remission. I'm no mathematician but that looks to me like 24 or 25 people of the original 298 - less than 10% of the original group.

I had diabetic symptoms well before weight gain, and had lost no significant weight in the four months it took (on 20g carb/day) to get my BG back to normal. To my mind weight gain and loss is a consequence, rather than a cause.
 
KennyA said:
The story does not make it entirely clear that after five years 23%, of 36%, of 298 subjects, were still in remission. I'm no mathematician but that looks to me like 24 or 25 people of the original 298 - less than 10% of the original group.
Click to expand...
Not far off, 8% according to someone who ran the figures, 11 out of the original 149.


The only thing about the weight debate is that these people started putting the weight back on over time.

The initial successful 86% that lost 15kg seemed to slowly put it back on

 
Yeah, I sway betweem folks generally knowing about weight loss being a pathway to remission, or at least - getting better with type two, being a good thing, and being super irritated by folks telling me all I have to do is lose weight to become type two free. A couple of tourists told me I was on my way to remission, well done me, on a wee hike some months ago. We'd had a very low key convo before that about being fit and having type two (what I had contributed to that convo). I told them somewhat gruffly that this was not going to happen for me, and that type two is a lot more complex than just weight loss leading to remission. ( I currently have a bmi of about 21-22.) They quickly sped up to put some distance between them and me. That was probably a good thing, lol.
 
This has been discussed in another recent thread, and we came to the conclusion that only 11 of the 149 (i.e.response group, not the contol group) people remained in remission.and this is just 7% success rate at 5 years.

Edit to add: Apparently the Control Group achieved about 3.5% remission in the same time span, without the Shake Rattle but possibly with a touch of roll.
 
Last edited:
My thinking is that we need to remind folks - the medical professionals as well as the general community of news readers out there that diabetes - the whole kit and kaboodle - is very complex.

And always, always, the distinction between auto immune diabetes and insulin resistance based diabetes, and diabetes caused from pancreatic damage. That's a whole lot of educating. (Hey! Wouldn't it be GREAT if our respective countries' Health authorities did that - wo ho!)
 
ps - and I haven't included a few because I don't understand them yet (I'm thinking of the reactive types) - is that a LOL? or a cause for head banging. I suspect the latter.
 
Less than 50% at one year and 11/149 at 5years (7%) with all the support available isn’t the best result. Yes it proves it’s possible but not a resounding success.
 
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.…