who said he has definitive proof? he wouldn’t need to do his $5 million trial if he did.
once again you are arguing, it’s also low fat and minimum protein, most would call it low protein too. it’s not a low carb diet by definition.
Anyone doing studies of low carb diets define these diets using carbs/day. Some people define low carb as < 150 g/day, some have lower levels. This is by any definition a low carb diet.
As I have said before, this is about evidence of causality, his studies show that (various) diets can both improve glycemia and reduce these fat stores. He is not doing any science to substantiate that the (various) diets “cause” weight loss which “causes” normal glycemia and fat loss. It is just as likely that (various) diets “cause” normal glycemia which “causes” weight and fat loss. He “tells the story” that the weight and fat “causes” diabetes. He is not doing science to substantiate that theory. The mere fact that normal glycemia occurs immediately in patients doing his diet, doing a low carb diet or having bariatric surgery suggests there is something fundamentally wrong in his theory.
2 Likes
nope, I’m done, have a nice day.
If being normal weight reversed my Type 2 Inwould no longer have to be on Diabetes Support forums. My weight vsties, usually between 109-113 most days. My bgs run from 130’s-250 most days. There are tons of us thinner type 2’s who stuggle everyday.
1 Like
yes there is, it all comes down to whether the pancreas can produce enough insulin, I guess you may fall in the 30% group.
although his MRI research has shown even skinnies can have fatty liver and pancreas and get good results if it goes.
As far as diets go there is actually a third alternative to LCHF or the traditional low fat. It’s based on the glycemic index and is currently the diet that is recommended at most diabetes training centers around the world. I myself used it successfully for 16 years managing my type II diabetes with hba1cs around 5 and keeping my weight in the normal range. There is one catch though and a reason that it has not gained more widespread popularity.
With the low GI diet you eat a ‘normal’ amount of carbs but you limit them to ones that have a low GI rating. The rating determines how quickly your body will metabolize the carbs into blood sugar. There is a scale from 1 to 100 and beyond where table sugar is 100, Kellogg’s corn flakes ia 120, a baked potato is 95, on the high end. On the low end, i.e. below 40 you will find many types of beans, squash, fettucini, certain kinds of rice and barley.
Since what it does is delay rather than preventt the creation of blood glucose the catch is that it must be combined with activity to be effective. I found the perfect solution to be a 40 minute walk after each meal, which effectively brought my blood sugars under full control as long as I combined the walking with a low GI diet.
Of course many people reject this solution as too complicated, particularly in the US, and others reject it because they can’t or won’t follow the exercise part. But for those who are willing to do the walk and who find LCHF too restrictive, it can work wonders. The only reason I switched to LCHF was that after my cardiac arrest five years ago my mobility was limited and without the walking I saw my blood sugars rising.
1 Like
I think it is important to understand that low GI diets can be beneficial for those with emerging T2 diabetes. The reason is that they create a lower effective Glycemic Load. The first phase insulin response is the first thing to go in those with pre-diabetes and hence eating a low GI food results in slower digestion and a better match to insulin production capabilities. Slower digestion gives your body more time to ramp up a second phase insulin response. The end result is that for an equal amounts of carbs a high GI food will both raise your blood sugar higher than a low GI food and the “area under the curve” for a high GI food will be larger than for a low GI food. Hence eating a low GI diet is essentially the same as reducing the carbs in your diet. But it isn’t a panacea, if your blood sugar is still going high 2-3 hours after a low GI meal it really won’t help you much.
2 Likes
Thanks for that additional information Brian. However, as I said before, a low GI diet will work well in combination with an activity plan, as the delay in conversion to blood sugar gives you time to ramp up your activity. But if someone is not into walking or any other activity after eating, all the GI diet does is delay the release, albeit with the advantages you mentioned in terms of insulin response.
I have studied Roy Taylor’s pronouncements in detail in the past and this caused me to take yet another look.
He cannot demonstrate any cause-effect mechanism between weight and T2DM. He says, often and boldly, that there is one, all right, but saying it doesn’t make it so. He has not one shred of evidence to back up the statement. The only thing he says that’s provable (and which countless people before and after him have also shown) is that losing weight improves glycemic control—for as long as you keep it up. Duh.
2 Likes
Unless a food item has a GI index of 0, it will still spike me to 180-250. Like Brian said these diets work if you are a pre diabetic or have had a terrible diet. I ate a great vegetarian diet before diabetes and was extremely active. I have no first phase insulin Respinse left, but still have a 2nd ohase that responds in 3-4’hours.
2 Likes
. . . and glycemic index is a very unreliable principle, too. Like everything else in diabetes, it works well for some, not for others. The glycemic index of a food hardly matters to me. Fruit will spike me just as effectively as, say, rice. YDMV. It’s helpful for some. Not everyone.
3 Likes
You have not looked hard enough. Look at this tudy for instance. Roy Taylor took people who had undergone bariatric surgery matched for age, 46, and weight ,120, kg and divided them into two groups, one where diabetic the other were none diabetic. He then checked them after 8 weeks, and weightloss was about the same, 13 kg.
He then used sophisticated mri- technology to check on the status of liver fat in the subjects.
The diabetics had substantially higher content of liver fat before the weightloss than did the non-diabetic subjects. After the weightloss they also lost fat from the liver, but the nondiabetics hardly lost any fat from it.
So there you go, a paper directly researching the answer you mean that Roy Taylor has not done any research on.
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2015/11/29/dc15-0750.full.pdf+html
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2015/11/29/dc15-0750.full.pdf+html
This papers shows a consistent relationship between weightloss and diabetes and is done by Roy Taylor read it up.
And what about this case?
a 3 year old girl from Texas was diagnosed with diabetes type 2 at age 3, weighing 35 kg.
However,6 months after diagnosis the baby has lost 9 kg and did not need any further medication her bloodsugars are normalized, so she is cured.
Do you find it a coinisidence that the youngest person ever to be recorded with type 2 diabetes, also happened to be extremely obese for its age? And when this young type 2 diabetic lost weight, her bloodsugars normalized? Do you not think this shows the connection between bodyweight and diabetes?
It is all about the degree of weightloss, which is unique to all individuals. Some have type 2 diabetes genes that may require them to keep a bmi of below 19 to not get diabetes, and this a minority, other may just have their bmi under 23 others 27.
The average bmi in the us is 30.
What is your bmi what is your bodyfat? If every male in the us had a bmi of 19, and a bodyfat of 6.4 we would not have diabetes, so go figure.
You probably need to lose more weight.
You seem to have entirely missed the point. You don’t seen to understand the difference between association and causation. My claim that normalization of blood sugar control is just as likely an explanation for weight loss and fat loss. Taylor’s research does nothing to disprove my claim so one cannot just assume his alternate explanation is correct. And the fact that his own key observations totally defy his hypothesis doesn’t seem to faze him.
And I personally find your accusation that obesity causes diabetes offensive and that I and many others here could have avoided diabetes just ridiculous. 80% of diabetes risk is explained by genetics. You absurd claim isn’t supported by Taylor’s research and it isn’t supported by others.
4 Likes
Every shred of data Taylor has (or claims to have) is about reducing the symptoms of diabetes once the disease is present. That is not evidence of causation, Surgery can cure cancer. Does failure to have surgery when young then cause cancer?
To coin a phrase, if one can’t get the most basic thing right, how can we trust anything his/her conclusions are based on?
4 Likes
Sorry my post was supposed to have this link.
It shows how the youngest person ever diagnosed with type 2 was a 3 year old girl that weighed 35 kg. When she lost 6 kg 6 months later her sugars normalised. Is this not evidence of the link between diabetes and weight?
And you talk about diabetes type like it is something you catch and have forever, but that is not necesarily true. Those people in Roy Taylors research are able to eat food and get readings like a non diabetic that is the imporant.
But you say that weightloss is connected with bloodsugar control, but why do not everyone that cut out all the carb automatically lose weight then? Lowcarb is an execellent tool to fight diabetes, if you induce weightloss. And this involves eating less than you energy expenditure, and lowcarb can be done in different ways. It is different to eat until satiated by natural yogurt, scrambled eggs,a lamb steak and leaffy veggies, compared to downing lunchmeats and drinking pure cream.
And lowcarbing is not going to make to much difference for type 2 diabetics and complications, if weightloss is not achieved. Diabetics still have 2 too 4 times the risk of having cardiovascular complications compared to non-diabetics regardless of tight or bad bloodsugar control. Eating lowcarb for life and having your bloodsugars go beserk if you eat one potato is not a hallmark of good glucose control.
And how you explain Michael Mosley. His bloodsugars want from the prediabetic range to normal, after having just fasted for 3 days. Weightloss had nothing to do with that?
I hesitated to even respond as I’ve taken sharp issue with this use of the word, “cure” in the past, yet you continue to assert this nonsense. I think “reverse” is another word that damages your credibility as well as presents a hazard to casual readers here.
Language matters. A remission of diabetes symptoms does not equal a cure or reversal of diabetes. The underlying condition remains and can manifest itself once more. Your continued use of this argument intentionally misleads and misinforms this community. I have no objection to a “reversal of symptoms” or “remission.”
3 Likes
I disagree with what you say, because my use of the word cure is connected with how I belive that type 2 diabetes work. Type 1 and the different sub categories of type are a whole another ballgame, so the following only holds for type 2 diabetes.
In order to display the symptoms of type 2 diabetes you need the right genes, and again this determines the amount of fat your body is able to hold, before it develops the sympphtoms of type 2 diabetes. Some may get diabetes at a bmi of 19 and a bodyfat of 20, others may not develop diabetes before their bmi is over 30, and their bodyfat is 40%.
As long as you display the numbers of the different glucose tests that we have for diabetes, OGTT, fasting test, random test and HB1C, above the limit. it is like if a switch is turned on inside your body. Every system of your body is wrecked with.
One example of how your body is being downgraded by having high bloodsugars is the fact that type 2 diabetics have a 2 to 4-fold increase in the risk of having a cardiovascular event, and that tight control does not really matter for this. Type 2 diabetics in general live 10 years shorter than other people, and here in my country a new study came out, showing that 50 percent of all the cardiovascular events in the whole country were by people with diabetes, despite these making up only 4 percent of the population!
So everyone with diabetes has this personal fat storage capacity determinted by their genetics. Go above this and you start hurting your body, go below this personal fat threshold, and your body behaves just like that of a nondiabetic. You see now?