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

VLCD - Liquid vs Solid

bulkbiker said:
The ND is another calorie restricted diet at heart with all the attendant problems of calorie restriction.. i.e. slowing of metabolic rate leading to weight regain (sometimes even more than was lost) etc etc etc..
Click to expand...

This is a little unfare, as being VERY low calorie and only for a limited time, aiming to only lose 15kg (not get to a normal BMI) the issues with slowing of metabolic rate are much reduced. The body responds more like it does to fasting then to a reduced calorie diet.

(It also looks like if a little weight is regained, it is not as fat on the liver and beta cells.)
 
Lot of people find they can’t fit very low carb into their life style (or their partner will not let them eat fat), but can fit in low carb, for them a few weeks of VLCD(ND) may be of great benefit.

Personally 23hr fasting with one low carb meal a day would fit my lifestyle a lot better than VLCD as I do all the cooking. I will try this if the weight loses stops on very low carb.

One advantage of VLCD(ND) is that the reports say most diabetic drugs can just be stopped at the start, unlike very low carb, then needs them to be slowly reduced.
 
I stopped mine when low carbing with no probs..
 
I have now rolled into circa 23 hour fasting, again by accident, which LCHF set me up nicely for, what a protocol. I am now just over 85 Kg's and my visceral fat has moved to 6.5 and body fat is either 13, 12.6 or 11.5 % depending on which set of my 3 scales I test on- I don't care as the relative drop is what interests me. LCHF is a gateway that is life changing, first 3 meals a day, then 2, now 1. I am planning my first 48 hour fast for 17th January and can't wait. I am still full on OMAD meal today 2.5 hours later, so feel more comfortable to go for a walk now.
 
When I was diagnosed I was taught that T2D differed from others mainly in having Insulin Resistnce (IR) which was termed mitochondrial IR since it was a failing in the Krebs cycls (i,e, citric cycle) and limited to muscle tissue. There was no definition of adipose IR which is due to NAFLD fat buildup.

The one good thing I take from ND is their use of MRI scanning to demonsrate that reduction in adipose fat is directly linked to IR reduction and improved metabolism keeping bgl low even without meds, and that it is a sustainable state (or seems to be for a while at least). The bad thing I get from ND is the interpretation by the press et al that the ND gives remission by reducing IR through weight loss. As far as I can see, adipose IR is the only one being addressed, and the question of mitochondrial IR is forgotten in the excitement.

I say that both types of IR need to be removed for remission to be truly in place, amd the jury is still out.

So to follow ND by LCHF type diet is sensible since the LC diet will also reduce the need for insulin and this mitigates the effect of mitochondrial IR, but IMHO LCHF has not been shown to cure muscle IR. I also think a keto diet and or intermittent fasting will also reduce adipose IR like ND does (which is itself technically a mild keto diet according to Optifast,)

People are desperate to find the magic bullet the quick fix that will remove the drudgery of taking responsibility for one's care. I personally find the challenges a welcome tool in keeping my eye on the ball and my health in as fine a fettle as I can do in the circumstances.
 

Wish I could like this a 1000x

I’ve been battling a deranged metabolism for 45 years now. Every time i get one thing sorted, or learn a new coping mechanism, my body changes the rules. Sometimes for the better. Sometimes for the worse. Change is the only constant.

I see people chasing these quick fixes, and rapid answers and I scratch my head. It just doesn’t work that way.
Even if you get a fab result with a quick fix now, there will be another challenge round the corner, in a year, or a decade.
That’s life.

This is such a long game, with as many layers as an onion.
Keeps it interesting.
Keeps me learning, adapting, ‘questing’.
Age, hormones, stress, diet, activity, injury, heredity, environment, medication (both for D and other conditions) all factor in.

For anyone to think that visceral fat levels in liver and pancreas is the sole determinant of long term type 2 symptoms is barely scratching the surface.
The short term surface.
 
bulkbiker said:
I stopped mine when low carbing with no probs..
Click to expand...

The point is that with low carb people often need GPs support (sometimes not with coming) to slowly reduce the meds if they give a risk of Hypos, but the most recent ND study had most meds with risk of Hypos (other than insulin) just stopped on the first day. People can do this without having to get their GP support, clearly, GP support is always better when it is an option, as it reduces risk.
 
Brunneria said:
For anyone to think that visceral fat levels in liver and pancreas is the sole determinant of long term type 2 symptoms is barely scratching the surface.
Click to expand...

For a lot of people who have gained the liver fat over a relativity short period of time, losing that fat along with the pancreas fat may be all they need, provided they don't regain it. This could be a simple as going "sugar-free" if they had gained this fat due to drinking lots of high sugar soft drinks.

I expect that the people who got Type2 due to the worse diets may have the easiest time defeating Type2 provided they take quick action when they first had their BG go out of control. Other people will clearly have a lifelong battle regardless of what short-term action they take.
 
Interesting view, however if you look at the HB1ac graph in the ND research you will see that fasting Blood sugars for entire cohort drops to relatively normal range within 2 weeks. So if you are correct, then your suggestion will move people into normal range in what 6/8/10 days? Given type2 is a life long illness, I don't see how being in target a few days earlier is very meaningful.
 
It seems both the ND and the LC protocols are effective in their own right, and I see little point in trying to merge the two to form a 1 size fits all replacement for Eatwell#2. The ND uses shakes that were formulated and developed by nutritionists for weight loss anyway, so this diet will gain support from the establishment far quicker than the quirky LC and keto diets.

The ND also appeals to people who just want a simple formulaic protocol to follow, turn the handle <n> times then find something else. The LC diet is a lifestyle change, so is not so readily assimilated and needs more thought and interaction so will not suit everybody. I think the two diets can be used in tandem to provide the short sharp shock, and then the other for longer term maintenance, and are perfectly compatible with each other. There are other diets around too that are effective and we have more than these two that can help us in our battle with D. There is no quick fix.
 
Last edited:
I do have issues with any position of dogma. Persons in the space of diabetes management would have access to all of the resources I have seen; the LCHF protocol tends to always outperform every other alternative in the first 6 months with a narrowing of the gap circa 6 months onwards - this is the case time after time to the point I am happy to say is conclusive. If low calorie low fat and higher carb outperformed LCHF I would happily say so, as I was / am open minded so have no time for bias (personally I research other protocols such as Vegan and WFPB as well).

The problem I have is that at 60% carbs ratio, this is the high end of what we have been told to do in the developed and developing world for decades just at a greater amount in the "normal" population, and look where that has got us. I just take a common sense approach, that Type 2's have carb and insulin intolerance, so why spike these more than required., seems counter intuitive to me.

I do realise I have a little resentment still, as I thought I was doing well with my food choices such as home made pancakes with just lemon, oats with just cinnamon, home made soda bread, dates, Delmonte orange juice, punnets of grapes, bananas, no fizzy drinks (just 4 a year at networking to cut the orange juice), to end up with Type 2.
 
Last edited:
I expect that the carb contents of the ND shakes have much more effect on someone who has been low carb long term before starting the ND...... Personally, I wish there were low carb shakes on the UK market that people could use for at least the first few weeks.

Remember most people in the ND study would have been having close to the level of carbs in the shakes before they started the ND diet, therefore for them, it was not an increase in carbs.
 
The use of a LC diet as part of the protocol would have confounded the ND study and compromised the outcome, The ND diet was designed to be a very low calorie intake proof of concept study, and had to use a reduced version of a traditional weight loss diet, and was not out to prove the efficacy of LC at all. It would have invalidated their protocol.

If you personally decide to do the ND diet as an LC variant, then there is nothing stopping you - I am sure it can be adapted. But if it works for you, then which element is the success due to? And what will it prove? ///the beauty of ND is its simplicity, and is one that anyone can do. It is also accepted by the nutritionalists and other HCP parties, whereas an LC diet or Keto diet would NOT be accceptable. As I said earlier, it is possible to use both diets in tandem and both are useful tools to have in a war chest. Trying to combine the two is probably counterproductive.
 
There is already a well proven very low-calorie low carb shake based diet for "fatty liver" that is used by some Garman consultants, and we know from the ND research.
  • The first stage is removing the fat from the liver
  • The ND carbs content is not an issue for BG once the fat is removed from the liver
What I can't decide is if the "peaks" in BG from the high carb is needed to "wake up" the beta cells, once the liver is care of fat..... (These peaks will not be got on a low carb diet.)
 
There are low carb shakes available on the UK market. Almased and Atkins spring to mind.
 
Brunneria said:
There are low carb shakes available on the UK market. Almased and Atkins spring to mind.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I just looked at this, Almased seems to be 15g carbs per shake, Atkins looks like 4g per shake.
 
The recent posts come at a good time for me, as I'm getting to the end of my current supply of food, and have been full of indecision about what to do next.

I'm definitely going back to attempting rapid weight loss, that's not the thing I'm struggling with, and I'm planning on the ~800 calories a day idea, as I know I've been okay with that briefly in the past.

When I did a 'shakes' diet for about a week, some time ago now, I did on one occasion to a 2-hour reading and, in spite of having had 24g carbs from the shake, the reading was in the non-diabetic range. This was several days into the diet. Contrast that with times when all it takes is 6g to get a horrible rise. This suggests that even quite 'carby' shakes can be tolerated quite well a few days in; by me at that time, anyway. Probably helped by the lack of fat in the liver, as suggested. RT certainly says not to worry about the sugar in such shakes as 'after a day' on very low calories the body 'tolerates it quite well'. No idea what science he's referring to, but anyway my experience does coincide with that after a few days.

One reason for me to choose the shakes is that I bought a lot of them a while ago and they are all waiting to be used up! These sugary shakes (Tesco Ultraslim and the almost-identical ASDA version) are at least very easy to get hold of and very affordable. They may be artificial, but it's only for a few weeks, and I like that they are crammed with vitamins, minerals & macros that are deemed to be ideal for sustaining human life on low calories (albeit not people with diabetes!). It does take a lot of the thought out of diet planning, which I think gets more difficult the lower the calories in terms of making sure you get a good balance of nutrients.

The 200 cal of veg compensates any unnatural 'vibe' from the shakes - it's really a huge amount of veg and I used a wide variety last time, so felt I was at least packing myself with a greater quantity of something healthy than I usually do!

I think it was member CherryAA (sorry if I got the name wrong) who made the good point recently, that even if you're getting 75g carbs a day from these shakes (and I estimate another 20-30g from the veg), you're body is still on a relatively high fat diet in terms of the fuels it's using, because most of it is coming from your stomach (well it is in my case anyway!).

I think my dilemma is going to be resolved by committing to the shakes approach until they are used up, monitoring fbgs and the occasional 2hr postprandial, then the scientist in me will not be able to resist switching to 800 cals from LCHF real food for a while and see if I notice any difference!

Once I can't comfortably lose any more fat, LCHF, or at least eating-to-my-meter carb wise, is very much my long view.
 
ringi said:
Thanks, I just looked at this, Almased seems to be 15g carbs per shake, Atkins looks like 4g per shake.
Click to expand...
Hi,
Almased is a nourishing, calorie controlled meal replacement which contains 15g of slow-releasing carbohydrates per serving, but also 27g of protein. For this reason, as it has a high protein content, the GI and GL is very low, (GI 27, GI 4) which is why many of our customers with Type 2 diabetes have experienced fantastic results no only with regards to weight loss and maintenance, but also with blood sugar levels too. If you have any further questions about Almased or our weight loss programmes, please always feel free to get in contact.

Thanks.
 
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.…