This is the answer what is the question? :-)

[LittleGreyCat]

A little lighthearted, but I was reminded that on first T2 diagnosis I was told that they didn't check to see if you were Insulin Resistant or had a failing pancreas because whatever the result the treatment was exactly the same.

I noted over the last week or so that the following advice/solutions have been offered:

Insulin Resistance? Fasting will clear out the fat from the liver and pancreas and reduce IR.

Failing pancreas? Fasting will give your pancreas a rest, and allow the beta cells to regenerate (also seen some research where mice had their pancreas revitalised by fasting).

Please note that I've nothing against fasting. I'm just considering that if I try some fasting and my BG improves I still won't know if it is because I was IR or had a failing pancreas.

Again, if it works does it matter?

Well, it would be nice to know and pass on to others for consideration.
Again, if it doesn't work it would be nice to know which of the two scenarios it didn't work in.

 

[CherryAA]

A little lighthearted, but I was reminded that on first T2 diagnosis I was told that they didn't check to see if you were Insulin Resistant or had a failing pancreas because whatever the result the treatment was exactly the same.

I noted over the last week or so that the following advice/solutions have been offered:

Insulin Resistance? Fasting will clear out the fat from the liver and pancreas and reduce IR.

Failing pancreas? Fasting will give your pancreas a rest, and allow the beta cells to regenerate (also seen some research where mice had their pancreas revitalised by fasting).

Please note that I've nothing against fasting. I'm just considering that if I try some fasting and my BG improves I still won't know if it is because I was IR or had a failing pancreas.

Again, if it works does it matter?

Well, it would be nice to know and pass on to others for consideration.
Again, if it doesn't work it would be nice to know which of the two scenarios it didn't work in.

I guess this is the difference between understanding your own body and "one size fits all" health treatment under conditions of cost control. I can understand precisely why, with budgetary constraints if the answer to all questions is - lose weight, eat the Eatwell plate, get more exercise and take these pills, then in practice it hardly matters to the doctor which of the various problems one actually has. It is rather frustrating though when you are then trying to resolve those issues yourself!

 

[JohnEGreen]

Does eating to the Eatwell plate lose you weight it didn't in my case.

 

[Bluetit1802]

Does eating to the Eatwell plate lose you weight it didn't in my case.

It's not intended as a weight loss diet in itself. It is for the general public. Probably, if eating the Eatwell Plate but limiting all portion sizes, we would lose weight. Eating it with large portion sizes we would most likely gain weight.

 

[Guzzler]

I hate tick boxes, pidgeon holing and statistics. They have nailed it with some cancer treatments, tailoring the treatments with, for example, the different chemotherapy cocktails to suit the individual and the cancer.

 

[AM1874]

It's not intended as a weight loss diet in itself. It is for the general public. Probably, if eating the Eatwell Plate but limiting all portion sizes, we would lose weight. Eating it with large portion sizes we would most likely gain weight.

I agree about the weight loss and "healthy eating" for the general public .. but with it's 25% of starchy carbs, it isn't a lot of help to us DBs in lowering our blood sugars

 

[JohnEGreen]

It's not intended as a weight loss diet in itself. It is for the general public. Probably, if eating the Eatwell Plate but limiting all portion sizes, we would lose weight. Eating it with large portion sizes we would most likely gain weight.

Sorry I had mistakenly thought that part of it's purpose was to help combat the problem of obesity in the general public but obviously not.

 

[Tannith]

A little lighthearted, but I was reminded that on first T2 diagnosis I was told that they didn't check to see if you were Insulin Resistant or had a failing pancreas because whatever the result the treatment was exactly the same.

I noted over the last week or so that the following advice/solutions have been offered:

Insulin Resistance? Fasting will clear out the fat from the liver and pancreas and reduce IR.

Failing pancreas? Fasting will give your pancreas a rest, and allow the beta cells to regenerate (also seen some research where mice had their pancreas revitalised by fasting).

Please note that I've nothing against fasting. I'm just considering that if I try some fasting and my BG improves I still won't know if it is because I was IR or had a failing pancreas.

Again, if it works does it matter?

Well, it would be nice to know and pass on to others for consideration.
Again, if it doesn't work it would be nice to know which of the two scenarios it didn't work in.

I am trying very low calorie diet at the moment. I have been doing it for 5 weeks and am losing weight. Without an MRI scanner I shall have no way of knowing when I have lost enough weight to hit my "personal threshold " and get the weight off both my liver & pancreas. Though I gather it comes off the liver first. ND subjects lost around 15% of their weight. I have read that 10% may be enough but I'm not risking that.Diabetes is too terrible a disease to start skimping on weight loss. Others say you should go down to the middle of your normal BMI ie BMI 22.5. I shall go to the lowest option before I stop. Another 12 weeks I guess.

 

[JohnEGreen]

Umm I think maybe I over did it losing about 49% of my starting body weight

 

[Bluetit1802]

I lost over 33% of my body weight but didn't see fully non-diabetic numbers for a further 12 months after dropping my carbs even more. The actual percentage required must be very personal and individual.

 

[Resurgam]

I lost over 33% of my body weight but didn't see fully non-diabetic numbers for a further 12 months after dropping my carbs even more. The actual percentage required must be very personal and individual.

I suspect that it is the low carb part of the equation which makes all the difference - the weight loss is probably a good thing in the long run but the lowering of BG is probably most essential factor.

 

[LittleGreyCat]

Sorry I had mistakenly thought that part of it's purpose was to help combat the problem of obesity in the general public but obviously not.

The Eatwell plate is supposed to help people who are overweight due mainly to poor diet.
As with other eating regimes it does also require you to limit the amount that you eat.
LCHF helps by reducing hunger in most cases.
As far as I know it is aims at the average punter who can handle "healthy carbohydrates" and doesn't cater to those who are allergic to carbohydrates.

So I think that the Eatwell plate is generally good nutritional advice for non-diabetics. Allegedly there are overweight and obese people who are suffering from malnutrition and it will help these people to be healthier and also lose weight.

For those with certain chronic conditions such as T2 diabetes it may not be as effective as LCHF. This needs more recognition.

 

[JohnEGreen]

So why then are many of those advised to follow it becoming diabetic and also those diabetics advised to follow it have a worsening condition those who eat less carbs tend to lose weight in general and those who eat higher amounts of carbs tend to gain weight. If I had followed the eatwell plate I would not have lost the weight I have.

 

[Tannith]

A little lighthearted, but I was reminded that on first T2 diagnosis I was told that they didn't check to see if you were Insulin Resistant or had a failing pancreas because whatever the result the treatment was exactly the same.

I noted over the last week or so that the following advice/solutions have been offered:

Insulin Resistance? Fasting will clear out the fat from the liver and pancreas and reduce IR.

Failing pancreas? Fasting will give your pancreas a rest, and allow the beta cells to regenerate (also seen some research where mice had their pancreas revitalised by fasting).

Please note that I've nothing against fasting. I'm just considering that if I try some fasting and my BG improves I still won't know if it is because I was IR or had a failing pancreas.

Again, if it works does it matter?

Well, it would be nice to know and pass on to others for consideration.
Again, if it doesn't work it would be nice to know which of the two scenarios it didn't work in.

Table 1

Published and proposed criteria for diabetes in remission


Criteria for remission Confirmation
ADA Consensus Group8 Partial remission (no longer having diabetes): Both HbA1c < 6.5% (<48 mmol/mol) and fasting blood glucose 5.6-6.9 mmol/L without antidiabetes drugs (time not specified) Maintained for 1 year
Complete remission (no longer having prediabetes): Both HbA1c< 6% (<42 mmol/mol) and fasting blood glucose <5.6 mmol/L without antidiabetes drugs (time not specified) Maintained for 1 year
Buchwald et al9(systematic review after bariatric surgery) HbA1c < 6% (42 mmol/mol) or fasting blood glucose<5.6 mmol/L without antidiabetic drugs (time not specified) None
Authors’
proposal for coding in routine practice Previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes by WHO criteria. HbA1c <6.5% (<48 mmol/mol) or fasting blood glucose<7 mmol/L and 2 hour glucose<11 mmol/L after at least 2 months without antidiabetes medication Two non-diabetic test results, at least 2 months apart then reviewed annually
I found these as the criteria for remission of T2 and Prediabetes. IE remission is measured solely by means of BG levels and Hba1c levels