And how did he lose that weight? Gosh by going low carb!
And how did he lose that weight? Gosh by going low carb!You don't think your extraordinarily massive weight loss (8 stone) might be the reason you have low BG? Anyone losing anywhere near that much weight pretty well MUST have lost the excess weight from their pancreas?
I don't need it to be fully repaired. Just to close to the normal range would suit me fine. Elsewhere (& I can't find it at the moment but in another description of the same study) he say s that 2nd phase insulin response ( the 2hour one) goes from approx 45% of the normal cohort's to approx 92% of it. That will do me. Simply lowering blood sugar is a goal I would only seek if all else had failed, as it treats the symptoms of T2 not the cause. And I would do it with metformin if no serious side effects, to avoid the risk of excess unhealthy fats. Edited to add PS Furthermore, when compared to a nondiabetic comparator (NDC) group used in the study, which matched the age/gender of the DiRECT intervention group participants after weight loss, the study participants’ maximum rate of insulin secretion was comparable. The intervention group participants’ insulin secretion increased from a median of 0.58 nmol/min/m2 at baseline to 0.94 nmol/min/m2 after two years, and the insulin secretion of the NDC group had a median insulin secretion rate of 1.02 nmol/min/m2 at 24-months follow up.I'm afraid @Tannith this holy grail you seek might not exist.
We know that in Taylor's 2 year follow up that maximal insulin secretion had increased to a rate comaprable to a non-diabetic control group. What is often missed in the small print is that their 1st phase insulin response was only 50% of the same control group, even @ 2 years post remission.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32060017/
Whether this deficency is down to signaling pathways, poor beta cell secretion rates or lack of insulin sensitivity is not explored.
This expains the large spikes often seen in pre-diabetic & diabetics after a carb load. Whether this 1st phase can be fully repaired has not yet been proven.
You can ONLY lose weight with low carb if you use it as a low cal diet. If you don't replace the missing carbs with extra calories from fat then of course you reduce your calories and lose weight. But simply changing the macronutrient from which you derive your calories cannot cause weight loss, only lower BG.Oh for goodness sake you are missing the point.
You want to lose weight to reach your PFT. You can do this by following low carb. The advantage of low carb is that you dont have to starve yourself to do this.
That was not my experience.You can ONLY lose weight with low carb if you use it as a low cal diet. If you don't replace the missing carbs with extra calories from fat then of course you reduce your calories and lose weight. But simply changing the macronutrient from which you derive your calories cannot cause weight loss, only lower BG.
Rubbish. You simply don't understand and you aren't listening. I increased my calories and lost weight. Our bodies are carb intolerant and work better when we reduce them. I already gave you a link to my fat fast where I lost weight having over 2000 cals a day, mostly from fat.You can ONLY lose weight with low carb if you use it as a low cal diet. If you don't replace the missing carbs with extra calories from fat then of course you reduce your calories and lose weight. But simply changing the macronutrient from which you derive your calories cannot cause weight loss, only lower BG.
Not in my experience.You can ONLY lose weight with low carb if you use it as a low cal diet. If you don't replace the missing carbs with extra calories from fat then of course you reduce your calories and lose weight. But simply changing the macronutrient from which you derive your calories cannot cause weight loss, only lower BG.
You don't think your extraordinarily massive weight loss (8 stone) might be the reason you have low BG? Anyone losing anywhere near that much weight pretty well MUST have lost the excess weight from their pancreas?
That is such a out dated opinion.You can ONLY lose weight with low carb if you use it as a low cal diet. If you don't replace the missing carbs with extra calories from fat then of course you reduce your calories and lose weight. But simply changing the macronutrient from which you derive your calories cannot cause weight loss, only lower BG.
I never claimed they were the same thing.Low cal is not the same as low carb. The two are "methods" of doing two totally different things. Low cal can reverse T2 whereas low carb can only lower blood sugar, (which can also be done with drugs like metformin). I am looking to REVERSE my T2. Just temporarily lowering blood sugar is not my goal. And the OGT measures beta cell function because it measures the body's SPEED of response to glucose, rather than just the total amount of glucose you have put into your blood by swallowing it (or not swallowing it, as in the case of low carb)
Absolutely false and wrong. I’ve no idea why you cling to this.You can ONLY lose weight with low carb if you use it as a low cal diet. If you don't replace the missing carbs with extra calories from fat then of course you reduce your calories and lose weight. But simply changing the macronutrient from which you derive your calories cannot cause weight loss, only lower BG.
Of course you need insulin to store calories as fat. But no amount of insulin can cause you to store a single calorie that you haven't first eaten. And even then you could only store it if it was in excess of your daily calorie requirements.That is such a out dated opinion.
I think you fundamentally don’t understand the nature of diabetes and seem to be stuck
It not just how many calories but how a body reacts. When I eat grains and root vegetables my BG spikes, this increases the insulin in my body. As a result even if I eat low calorie I won’t be able to loose weight because insulin is a fat storing hormone.
When I eat food that keeps my BG steady I can eat more and not gain but loose weight because I have controlled the amount of insulin in my body.
While you're out, I suggest you find a 12 year old, borrow their basic general science textbook and revise the First Law of Thermodynamics.Absolutely false and wrong. I’ve no idea why you cling to this.
Using low carb and keto, many have maintained or even increased calories but changed the macros and lost weight, reduced blood sugars AND improved our second stage insulin response and insulin resistance and ability to pass an OGTT.
I’ll bow out again now unless you post more inaccurate information as fact.
no, sorry. This is not how it works in type 2 diabetics like me. Thats why we put on weight.if it was in excess of your daily calorie requirements.
even if this were true, which is disputed, this does not apply to those with insulin resistance and impairment.First Law of Thermodynamics.
No need to be rude.While you're out, I suggest you find a 12 year old, borrow their basic general science textbook and revise the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Someone should tell my body this. It doesn't agree with you at all. Increase the calories, ditch the carbs and the weight comes off. It obviously hasn't read the same text books as you and yours.You can ONLY lose weight with low carb if you use it as a low cal diet. If you don't replace the missing carbs with extra calories from fat then of course you reduce your calories and lose weight. But simply changing the macronutrient from which you derive your calories cannot cause weight loss, only lower BG.
You and the nutritionista assume that every mote of food that goes through your mouth gets used to produce energy. using Joules Law 1 kcal = 4,200 joules. But this does not take into account the filters in our bodies that use or reject nutrients, and also assumes that the food we do absorb gets converted into energy-efficient forms The food gets converted from one form to another in the body, which by itself uses a lot of energy which again is not allowed for in the simple formulae used by food manufacturers. In other words, there is no measurement in vivo but an estimate of what a bomb calorimeter once measured in the lab on single ingredients one at a time.While you're out, I suggest you find a 12 year old, borrow their basic general science textbook and revise the First Law of Thermodynamics.
You and the nutritionista assume that every mote of food that goes through your mouth gets used to produce energy. using Joules Law 1 kcal = 4,200 joules. But this does not take into account the filters in our bodies that use or reject nutrients, and also assumes that the food we do absorb gets converted into energy-efficient forms The food gets converted from one form to another in the body, which by itself uses a lot of energy which again is not allowed for in the simple formulae used by food manufacturers. In other words, there is no measurement in vivo but an estimate of what a bomb calorimeter once measured in the lab on single ingredients one at a time.
What is stated on the packet is at best a rough guesstimate of potential energy in the ingredients, not the meal as a whole. Different people process this in different ways, and what comes out as rejected material also differs. It is like saying that a jerry can of petrol will make a car drive for x miles, without taking in to account its octane value and the engine efficiencies. or even the weight of the car and passengers or the prevailing wind direction. Cars tend to go further when going downhill. Not sure what happens when I go downhill. Wonder what my mpg is. (metres per gutful)
I am carb intolerant, which means I do not process carbs as efficiently as I should. The lab lookup tables are not calibrated for me.
If our bodies were simplistic mechanical devices, then I might agree with you, but our bodies have an innate intelligence that regulates all the processes in our bodies better than the computers in the Space Shuttle. While our food transits the intestines and colon, our body controls how and when it collects nutrients from the gut and usually this process is responding to another set of demand./ saity enzymes that alter what we accept from the food stream. Most of our meal appears at the other end and gets discarded. We know this contains the macronutrients from the meal since it can be placed into a sludge digester and produce methane which we can burn for energy, It also can be used as a fertilizer so has other nutrients still in the mix that did not get grabbed. So the calories-in does not represent what actually gets passed into our body for use.It still comes down to calories in vs calories out. The reason it seems otherwise is because people mistake calories in as being measured at our mouths. But in reality, both calories in and out are a 'bottom-line' equation. After all the questions of satiety, dietary compliance, nutrient absorption/malabsorption and whether the body ramps up metabolism, increases heat or forces us to fidget via N.E.A.T, to burn any excess energy off, one is left with a number that is balanced against our actual/real caloric expenditure. An energy deficit will lead to needing to borrow from stored energy (fat and muscle bank), and an excess will allow one to make an energy deposit, to be used for another time.
Because we can't accurately measure the absolute calories in food, nor the energy that is lost through the various processes and inconsistencies, or the fact that us lay people certainly can't accurately measure our caloric expenditure (not to mention that none of this is neatly calcualated by the body in 24-hour time packages), it can seem like calories in/out does not compute. But Tannith is right when referring to thermodynamics. These are unbreakable laws of energy. Which is fortunate, because we'd never have survived as a species were it not for our ability to store and burn excess energy, at the appropriate times.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?