There is a cure.. how come nobody does this?

[Freema]

Well I am trying still to loose enough weight to get rid of my diabetes But thought 800 calories were to few so have done 1000 calories for 6 month But have eaten a lot more since started to excercise very much still not gotten rid of my diabetes but maybe when I have lost the next 10 kg still hoping

 

[JohnEGreen]

@Pipp Well I am about there I think so my intent is to gradually increase my daily calories by increments in till I find a balance hopefully and am able to maintain the weight I am now. This is the plan anyway Murphy's law allowing that is.

If I can just get out of the must keep losing weight mind set I have got into.

I did jokingly say to the wife that I would race her to nine stone the other day she did not find it funny.

 

[douglas99]

If it works for you personally then - great! However as others have pointed out, it isn't a lifetime 'fix'. You have to continue with your new found good habits and is therefore not a 'cure' as such. Yes @douglas99 I know you are going to say 'if you break a finger etc etc' What I want people to realise is that it isn't just 8 weeks and then hey let's party! As @Pipp has said the real work starts after the 8 weeks when you continue to watch your weight and diet, for life. That is the essence of the ND, it's watching your waistline and food intake for life so that you don't get back into bad habits. In that way it's no different from any other method of controlling T2. If calorie control works for you then fine, however some of us find carb intake is far more important than calorie control. Some of us need to take insulin no matter what else we try.

Whatever way you choose to obtain HbA1cs that are in the normal range you have to be aware that this is for life not just for 8 weeks, 16 weeks etc. There just isn't a quick fix. If only....

Well, it depends what you mean by 'party'

I'd rather eat the pizza with a few glasses of wine in company, then go out for the weekend for a pub lunch, with a few glasses of beer, yorkshire pudding, roast potatoes, then if I have to I cut the calories in the weekday, I do so I don't put on weight.

As to 'watching your weight for life', if you follow hankjams links, it does appear 'normal' people do actually have the ability to control what they eat, so I can live with that trade off to be normal.
But if you believe in a life of unrestricted eating, I do agree, any form of calorie control would be doomed to failure.

 

[himtoo]

I am going to quickly ask that everyone please stay polite , "on topic" and avoid comments that can be seen as personal to individual posters.
I would hate to have to intervene with post deletions , to a topic that does seem to have a lot of interest.

thanks !!

 

[Pipp]

I used to say 'it , (Newcastle diet) worked for me'. Note the past tense., 'worked' rather than 'is working'. Yet, if we are going to be truly following the methodology, then surely we need to shift our thinking. What I mean is to follow it correctly, adhering to the information in the research papers, we need to remember the follow up to the very low calorie phase. At risk of becoming boring I repeat: the need to continue, for life, on less calories than previously consumed. In other words, there is no past tense with this method. It is for life.

 

[douglas99]

I used to say 'it , (Newcastle diet) worked for me'. Note the past tense., 'worked' rather than 'is working'. Yet, if we are going to be truly following the methodology, then surely we need to shift our thinking. What I mean is to follow it correctly, adhering to the information in the research papers, we need to remember the follow up to the very low calorie phase. At risk of becoming boring I repeat: the need to continue, for life, on less calories than previously consumed. In other words, there is no past tense with this method. It is for life.

Nope, I ate a lot less earlier in my life, I ramped it up in my thirties, so I'm just back to a previous point.
Just correcting a mistake.
I'm sure if I haven't made it, I wouldn't have to have corrected it.

 

[Pipp]

@douglas99 Do you mean that you ate too much, for a short time, put on visceral fat, by doing so, then reduced the visceral fat by very low calorie diet, now don't eat as much as you did, in the period you 'ramped it up'? My understanding of that is that you are still consuming less than you did in the period immediately prior to the calorie restriction phase.

 

[douglas99]

@douglas99 Do you mean that you ate too much, for a short time, put on visceral fat, by doing so, then reduced the visceral fat by very low calorie diet, now don't eat as much as you did, in the period you 'ramped it up'? My understanding of that is that you are still consuming less than you did in the period immediately prior to the calorie restriction phase.

The way I see it, I'm eating as much now, as I did in the days before I piled weight on.
A bit like moving from the glass of wine at weekends, to the bottle every night, then deciding the glass was the more normal option, and putting the cork back in the bottle on a Sunday for some people.

 

[Pipp]

Thanks @douglas99 , so you still eat a lot less than you did immediately prior to the very low calorie phase of ND. Well done. My understanding of what you are reporting is that in your case, the 'ramping up' food intake, is what you believe caused you to gain weight, and have diabetic BG readings. Now that you have addressed that you are no longer having high BG readings. It would appear then that you have eliminated the visceral fat. Still eating less than in your 'ramping up' days. Which is what is recommended.

Now, can you consider that you have found your solution, but for others, myself included, the weight gain was not due to 'ramping up' food intake, but by following the medical advice to eat low fat foods and to include complex carbs at every meal. Also, that many of us are not as fortunate in having such a simple solution as you have? In my case, I do have non-diabetic BG levels, but still have a good deal of subcutaneous fat. I know it is not visceral fat as the surgeon who operated on my abdomen told me. He had been surprised that all my abdominal organs were clear of fat, and had expected to find liver enlargement, but didn't. This I do attribute to following Prof Taylor's methods. The remaining subcutaneous fat is stubbornly refusing to leave me.

 

[douglas99]

Thanks @douglas99 , so you still eat a lot less than you did immediately prior to the very low calorie phase of ND. Well done. My understanding of what you are reporting is that in your case, the 'ramping up' food intake, is what you believe caused you to gain weight, and have diabetic BG readings. Now that you have addressed that you are no longer having high BG readings. It would appear then that you have eliminated the visceral fat. Still eating less than in your 'ramping up' days. Which is what is recommended.

Now, can you consider that you have found your solution, but for others, myself included, the weight gain was not due to 'ramping up' food intake, but by following the medical advice to eat low fat foods and to include complex carbs at every meal. Also, that many of us are not as fortunate in having such a simple solution as you have? In my case, I do have non-diabetic BG levels, but still have a good deal of subcutaneous fat. I know it is not visceral fat as the surgeon who operated on my abdomen told me. He had been surprised that all my abdominal organs were clear of fat, and had expected to find liver enlargement, but didn't. This I do attribute to following Prof Taylor's methods. The remaining subcutaneous fat is stubbornly refusing to leave me.

I followed a low fat diet prior to the Newcastle diet.
I lost a great deal of weight on that, so no, I not blaming the NHS for a very good diet.
In fact, the NHS dietitians assistance was the initial turning point.
Stuffing food into my mouth was solely down to me.

But possibly visceral fat isn't easily shifted by other diets, which is why the Newcastle diet seems to be unique.

 

[JohnEGreen]

For me I blame the prednisolone after getting MG and being put on ever increasing dosages of preds and no longer being able to exercise after being very active, the preds over the years raised my blood sugars and drove weight gain until I ended up diabetic and very obese or visa versa. So for me I think I am going to have to control my diet indefinitely as I cannot stop the preds and the MG is not going away, I would just start the whole cycle over again if I didn't.

 

[Pipp]

I followed a low fat diet prior to the Newcastle diet.
I lost a great deal of weight on that, so no, I not blaming the NHS for a very good diet.
In fact, the NHS dietitians assistance was the initial turning point.
Stuffing food into my mouth was solely down to me.

But possibly visceral fat isn't easily shifted by other diets, which is why the Newcastle diet seems to be unique.

It is admirable, @douglas99 that you take responsibility for overeating, and gaining the weight. I think you are saying that you caused your own BG problems. I hope that you can show yourself some compassion for that. There are many reasons why people over-eat.
Your quote about visceral fat not being easily shifted, confirms my belief that ND is not going to work on reducing BG or reversing T2 for those who do not have visceral fat. I would agree with that, as there have been many posters in forum, who have persevered trying to reverse their T2 with ND, who report normal or too low BMI. If they have low body weight, it is also likely that they have low visceral fat. It would be impractical for everyone to have an MRI scan to check, as happened with the participants in the original Newcastle University study by Taylor et al. Or too brutal to open them up, and have a look like my surgeon did.

 

[douglas99]

It is admirable, @douglas99 that you take responsibility for overeating, and gaining the weight. I think you are saying that you caused your own BG problems. I hope that you can show yourself some compassion for that. There are many reasons why people over-eat.
Your quote about visceral fat not being easily shifted, confirms my belief that ND is not going to work on reducing BG or reversing T2 for those who do not have visceral fat. I would agree with that, as there have been many posters in forum, who have persevered trying to reverse their T2 with ND, who report normal or too low BMI. If they have low body weight, it is also likely that they have low visceral fat. It would be impractical for everyone to have an MRI scan to check, as happened with the participants in the original Newcastle University study by Taylor et al. Or too brutal to open them up, and have a look like my surgeon did.

But 80% of type 2 diabetics aren't just overweight, they are actually obese.
So at least 4 out of 5 and then possibly the remaining 1 in some cases.

As to why many overeat, I followed a classic pattern of being active, then following a career with a desk job and on site management with a free hotel, free food, and expense and entertainment account, with a food and beer culture of working hard and playing hard.

 

[Djstevesire]

Ok just to touch a few issues.
I don't know if I'm misunderstanding. But it seems

1. people thinking its ok to resume the dietary habits that caused the t2d to begin with? Example overeating and eating ****** food.. common sense shows that if you continue the habits and behaviors which caused the problem in the first place and you Will end up back where you started with t2d.

a permanent lifestyle change Will be needed to remain t2d free. To think you can simply do the Newcastle diet and then resume the same lifestyle is absolutely absurd by any means. Can we please agree on this. And stop claiming that you can't return to "normal eating".. as a persons view of normal eating is obviously not normal to begin with.. for instance drinking soda is NOT normal
By any means.. neither is eating junk food... just a hundred years ago
NONE of these "foods" even existed.

Thoughtcomments.

 

[bulkbiker]

Ok just to touch a few issues.
I don't know if I'm misunderstanding. But it seems

1. people thinking its ok to resume the dietary habits that caused the t2d to begin with? Example overeating and eating ****** food.. common sense shows that if you continue the habits and behaviors which caused the problem in the first place and you Will end up back where you started with t2d.

a permanent lifestyle change Will be needed to remain t2d free. To think you can simply do the Newcastle diet and then resume the same lifestyle is absolutely absurd by any means. Can we please agree on this. And stop claiming that you can't return to "normal eating".. as a persons view of normal eating is obviously not normal to begin with.. for instance drinking soda is NOT normal
By any means.. neither is eating junk food... just a hundred years ago
NONE of these "foods" even existed.

Thoughtcomments.

What is in your view "normal eating" . You need to establish that before anyone can comment on what you have asked.

 

[Djstevesire]

Another topic I think I'll start a new thread on..

We as a people need to stop with this starvation mode myth!
Does starvation mode exist. Yes...
but are people who are obese starving. NO!

I Will make this disclaimer.. some hormone/thyroid/medications issues do affect metabolism... this is in lui of those issues.. but regardless.. this is the way the body is intended and supposed to work


You must understand what purpose that bodyfat serves in the body..
It is literally stored energy to be used in case of food shortage..
How can one be starving when there is a surplus of calories held within the body. I would love to hear the answer to this..

Now to touch up more on this subject..

1. Your body burns a certain amount of calories just being alive without any movement. This is the majority of what you burn daily. It's referred to as your bmr. Or basal metabolic rate.

2.guess what dictates your bmr..
the amount of lean body mass you have. Also known as "muscle"

This is why resistance training is recommended as apposed to cardio. as it NOT only increases your bmr And allows you to burn MORE calories at rest, it also burns calories during the exercise... so essentially you get double the benefit for half the work..

1lb of muscle burns approx 7-15 calories per day at rest.. so if a person was to add a realistic 20 lbs of muscle to their frame. In a year..
They would burn an additional 150-300 calories LAYING IN BED.. PER DAY.

Some will say "I don't want to be muslcebound" this is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. You will NEVER become musclebound.. you have to follow a very specific protocols of diet and training for years upon years to get that way.. along with taking steroids to boot. I assure you NO MUSCLEbound person got that way accidentally. I repeat years and years of consistent nonstop planning and contionous effort to get that way.

Furthermore..

The metabolic adaption to low calorie or starvation diet is less then ten percent...
More like 2--5 percent ...
if a person is on a 2000 calories diet that is equivalent 100 CALORIES! Lol that is definelty not the casue of the massive rebound in weight..

The reality is that people are simply going right back to thier old "bad" eating habits.. after loosing a substantial amount of both fat and muscle...(since they didn't resistance train to retain or build moremuscle).
So this loss of muscle tissue is in fact the "damage" that is done to the metabolism...


For example
so in the same person who goes on a severe calorie restriction without resistance training(the stimulus to keep or grow muscle) had a bmr of 2000 calories .. 133lbs lean body mass and 67lbs of fat when the diet started started..total 200lbs

When they completed the diet and lose 60 lbs... This weight loss is from from BOTH fat and muscle since no stimulus was given to retain muscle... let's say 40 lbs fat and 20lns muscle ...

They are now left with 113lbs muscle and 27 lbs fat...total 140lbs...

They go and try to eat at their bmr of 2000 calories guess what happens. They gain FAT weight at a rapid pace ... why?

Because now that they didn't retain their muscle aka lbm aka their metabolism their new bmr is 1700 calories... (113 x 15)

And they think wow damaged my metabolism..or entered starvation mode..
This is false yet true.

You did damage your metabolism ...but by decreasing your muscle
Mass or lbm.. not necessarily by eating less per se.

Everybody has muscle mass.. it only refers to the amount of your body that is NOT FAT..

Hope this clears up this misconception / myth and puts it to bed once and for all!

 

[Brunneria]

We as a people need to stop with this starvation mode myth!
Does starvation mode exist. Yes...
but are people who are obese starving. NO!

I Will make this disclaimer.. some hormone/thyroid/medications issues do affect metabolism... this is in lui of those issues.. but regardless.. this is the way the body is intended and supposed to work


You must understand what purpose that bodyfat serves in the body..
It is literally stored energy to be used in case of food shortage..
How can one be starving when there is a surplus of calories held within the body. I would love to hear the answer to this..

Now to touch up more on this subject..

1. Your body burns a certain amount of calories just being alive without any movement. This is the majority of what you burn daily. It's referred to as your bmr. Or basal metabolic rate.

2.guess what dictates your bmr..
the amount of lean body mass you have. Also known as "muscle"

This is why resistance training is recommended as apposed to cardio. as it NOT only increases your bmr And allows you to burn MORE calories at rest, it also burns calories during the exercise... so essentially you get double the benefit for half the work..

1lb of muscle burns approx 7-15 calories per day at rest.. so if a person was to add a realistic 20 lbs of muscle to their frame. In a year..
They would burn an additional 150-300 calories LAYING IN BED.. PER DAY.

Some will say "I don't want to be muslcebound" this is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. You will NEVER become musclebound.. you have to follow a very specific protocols of diet and training for years upon years to get that way.. along with taking steroids to boot. I assure you NO MUSCLEbound person got that way accidentally. I repeat years and years of consistent nonstop planning and contionous effort to get that way.

Furthermore..

The metabolic adaption to low calorie or starvation diet is less then ten percent...
More like 2--5 percent ...
if a person is on a 2000 calories diet that is equivalent 100 CALORIES! Lol that is definelty not the casue of the massive rebound in weight..

The reality is that people are simply going right back to thier old "bad" eating habits.. after loosing a substantial amount of both fat and muscle...(since they didn't resistance train to retain or build moremuscle).
So this loss of muscle tissue is in fact the "damage" that is done to the metabolism...


For example
so in the same person who goes on a severe calorie restriction without resistance training(the stimulus to keep or grow muscle) had a bmr of 2000 calories .. 133lbs lean body mass and 67lbs of fat when the diet started started..total 200lbs

When they completed the diet and lose 60 lbs... This weight loss is from from BOTH fat and muscle since no stimulus was given to retain muscle... let's say 40 lbs fat and 20lns muscle ...

They are now left with 113lbs muscle and 27 lbs fat...total 140lbs...

They go and try to eat at their bmr of 2000 calories guess what happens. They gain FAT weight at a rapid pace ... why?

Because now that they didn't retain their muscle aka lbm aka their metabolism their new bmr is 1700 calories... (113 x 15)

And they think wow damaged my metabolism..or entered starvation mode..
This is false yet true.

You did damage your metabolism ...but by decreasing your muscle
Mass or lbm.. not necessarily by eating less per se.

Everybody has muscle mass.. it only refers to the amount of your body that is NOT FAT..

Hope this clears up this misconception / myth and puts it to bed once and for all!

I disagree.

 

[walnut_face]

<snip> confirms my belief that ND is not going to work on reducing BG or reversing T2 for those who do not have visceral fat. <snip>

Can argue with that @Pipp 1st thing I did after diagnosis was have an ultrasound scan on all me bits and bobs. When the HCP talked me through the pics she said my internals were in good condition, and was surprised at my glum response. I rely was hoping to see my liver et al lit up by vast areas of fat, but alas not, just 3% for the liver and 'trace' for the pancreas. Infact the £149 spent was only justified by the fact in highlighted a cyst on a kidney
As a result. I ditched the ND idea, adopting the 5:2 in the first instance.
The dilemma I now have is a 'normal' HbA1c when I know **** well I am as Diabetic as ever, which causes less input from my DN, who thinks everything is tickety - boo

 

[Djstevesire]

I disagree.

Ok so please add to why you disagree?

Do you have a reason? Maybe a scientific study? I would love to see .. thanks

 

[Djstevesire]

Can argue with that @Pipp 1st thing I did after diagnosis was have an ultrasound scan on all me bits and bobs. When the HCP talked me through the pics she said my internals were in good condition, and was surprised at my glum response. I rely was hoping to see my liver et al lit up by vast areas of fat, but alas not, just 3% for the liver and 'trace' for the pancreas. Infact the £149 spent was only justified by the fact in highlighted a cyst on a kidney
As a result. I ditched the ND idea, adopting the 5:2 in the first instance.
The dilemma I now have is a 'normal' HbA1c when I know **** well I am as Diabetic as ever, which causes less input from my DN, who thinks everything is tickety - boo

Ugh I can't stand "doctors"... when I went and asked younhavent my sugar tested it came back 119...

I asked the doctor if that's bad..
She says oh you don't have till 120-125..

I'm
Like isn't that diabetes .. she says yes...

So I'm like don't you think I should do soemthing now!

It's like they seriously have NO clue as to what thenhell their doing.