Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes News and Research
Diabetes Research
VLCD - Liquid vs Solid
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AdamJames" data-source="post: 1657953" data-attributes="member: 459333"><p>I also have a big question mark over the long-term results, simply because they don't exist yet. I also think it's a **** shame that the 11 people in the original trial haven't been followed since. I think it was just a 3-month followup and by that time already 4 were "on their way back to diabetes" or somesuch, I can't find the reference now.</p><p></p><p>Your concerns are clearly shared by the people at Newcastle/Glasgow. On the site it states of the first experiment "This caused international interest, but the study was very short as it was only eight weeks and the question remained whether the diabetes would stay away."</p><p></p><p>The DiRECT study aimed to tackle that, and for all its failings (particularly I feel the definition of remission), at least it is getting that part right, and so far the check-a-year-later bit has got some positive results.</p><p></p><p>They seem to have additional concerns over the ones you've stated, such as the very sensible one of "Okay they are now getting much better HbA1Cs, but is that actually going to reduce complications in future?". Those findings will be interesting and it's a pity we have to wait a very long time to see any patterns. It's a great question though, and in some way side-steps the problem of the definition of remission: After all, what really matters? If people can greatly reduce the chances of complications by taking certain actions, who cares what the definition of remission is?</p><p></p><p>I suspect whether any approach works long-term will all boil down to the same thing for any individual: genetics, luck and, importantly, self-discipline with food - which is the same whether you are doing life-long LCHF, or if you are lucky enough to manage to restore your metabolism with weight loss then try to ensure you never re-gain weight.</p><p></p><p>The thing that I find genuinely exciting about the first Newcastle experiment is how clearly it showed the restoration of metabolic function, and how it provided a new and simple way of defining Type 2 diabetes (fat in beta cells, in particular). I strongly suspect it's overly-simplistic - all scientific understanding is looked back on as being overly-simplistic once enough time has passed. But if that line of enquiry isn't worth pursuing, I don't know what is. And if LCHF eating isn't worth similar efforts to study, I don't know what is. It's all knowledge that helps us build a picture.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AdamJames, post: 1657953, member: 459333"] I also have a big question mark over the long-term results, simply because they don't exist yet. I also think it's a **** shame that the 11 people in the original trial haven't been followed since. I think it was just a 3-month followup and by that time already 4 were "on their way back to diabetes" or somesuch, I can't find the reference now. Your concerns are clearly shared by the people at Newcastle/Glasgow. On the site it states of the first experiment "This caused international interest, but the study was very short as it was only eight weeks and the question remained whether the diabetes would stay away." The DiRECT study aimed to tackle that, and for all its failings (particularly I feel the definition of remission), at least it is getting that part right, and so far the check-a-year-later bit has got some positive results. They seem to have additional concerns over the ones you've stated, such as the very sensible one of "Okay they are now getting much better HbA1Cs, but is that actually going to reduce complications in future?". Those findings will be interesting and it's a pity we have to wait a very long time to see any patterns. It's a great question though, and in some way side-steps the problem of the definition of remission: After all, what really matters? If people can greatly reduce the chances of complications by taking certain actions, who cares what the definition of remission is? I suspect whether any approach works long-term will all boil down to the same thing for any individual: genetics, luck and, importantly, self-discipline with food - which is the same whether you are doing life-long LCHF, or if you are lucky enough to manage to restore your metabolism with weight loss then try to ensure you never re-gain weight. The thing that I find genuinely exciting about the first Newcastle experiment is how clearly it showed the restoration of metabolic function, and how it provided a new and simple way of defining Type 2 diabetes (fat in beta cells, in particular). I strongly suspect it's overly-simplistic - all scientific understanding is looked back on as being overly-simplistic once enough time has passed. But if that line of enquiry isn't worth pursuing, I don't know what is. And if LCHF eating isn't worth similar efforts to study, I don't know what is. It's all knowledge that helps us build a picture. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes News and Research
Diabetes Research
VLCD - Liquid vs Solid
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…