Newcastle Study Reverses Diabetes

The problem is that all the talk about managing insulin being the key is just talk. No evidence. Fung knows how to publish. He has done it several times. But he hasn't done it for his insulin hypothesis. Sharing results with peers is a core part of the scientific method. People throw around the term "not scientific" too freely, but something isn't science until it's shared with peers.

Well, no doctor even understands insulin Area under the curve - cos nearly all doctors fell asleep in calculus class. They all understand the peak but never consider how long. That's why fructose is considered good till someone found out it has to go through the liver, yet, its GI is still 22. That whole GI scale is drawn by someone who doesn't understand area under the curve. of course a diabetic also needs to keep that peak value low. So GI isn't completely useless.

I dont know if Dr Fung's data has been analyzed and rejected or no one has cared to. Seriously, no one makes $$$ when there is fasting involved, so I dont see anyone lining up to spend hours of their time looking at it.

The bottom line is that understanding insulin is irrelevant. If a hypocaloric diet reverses diabetes at a rate proportional to weight loss - and the Newcastle study shows that it does - then you don't need to measure insulin. Maybe insulin is key. Maybe it's not. You don't need to measure insulin. You just need to consume fewer calories for a while.

If a sniper fires a bullet into a target's head, he doesn't need to know the biology of what's happening as the bullet tears through flesh and bone. All he needs to know is how to point and shoot. The biology of a bullet wound is a different level of description, but it is not necessary for effective behavioral implementation.

What makes me cringe about the Study is that by far the majority of people are totally unable to exist on 850 calories per day, liquid at that. I still remember the deaths caused by the liquid diets of the 70's. Most did not have an entire staff of researchers breathing down their necks, nor were they as complete w/ vitamins and minerals. Heart troubles began within 2 months of the start.
charm.cs.uiuc.edu/users/jyelon/lowcarb.med/topic9.html
In fact, one of the beauties of fasting is that total abstinence from food is easier on the participants than a meagre portion. Nor do you have to do it for months at a time to get results. This is from my personal experience. Fasting also reduces insulin, which relieves type 2 diabetes, plus other weight related issues. However, fasting with booze and flax seeds is not any version of fasting that I've ever heard of.

sharperhawk wrote:The bottom line is that understanding insulin is irrelevant. If a hypocaloric diet reverses diabetes at a rate proportional to weight loss - and the Newcastle study shows that it does - then you don't need to measure insulin. Maybe insulin is key. Maybe it's not. You don't need to measure insulin. You just need to consume fewer calories for a while.

If a sniper fires a bullet into a target's head, he doesn't need to know the biology of what's happening as the bullet tears through flesh and bone. All he needs to know is how to point and shoot. The biology of a bullet wound is a different level of description, but it is not necessary for effective behavioral implementation.

Understanding of insulin is irrelevant when they can starve the people into a 1/4th the calories while keeping macros nearly the same - SAD is what 2500+ cals 60% carb 25% fat and 15% protein - and they restricted the people to 800 - so they're 1/3rd or under while still having the same macros. That assures 1/3rd the insulin in a insulin sensitive person and maybe 3/4 the insulin in a Insulin resistant person.
So if you keep the macros same as you always are but eat 1/3rd to 1/4th for a year, you lose 22 lb ...
So - 22lb weight loss after a yr ??? In retrospect, in 6 weeks I managed a 19 lb loss just cutting out stuff I didn't care for that happened to be carbs (rice and bread).

20lb is a loss I dont even count as real weight loss, water and intestinal contents and bacteria account for most of that atleast in my case.

The bullet tears through flesh and bone and no understanding is required - excellent, let the bullet be made of styrofoam.

Paysan wrote: However, fasting with booze and flax seeds is not any version of fasting that I've ever heard of.

Think about it - fat doesn't create an insulin response. Flax is fat and protein and 2 oz over a day hardly matters - 10gm protein in 12 or so hours.
Alcohol causes no insulin either - purer the better, cant be drinking beer, but vodka or clear extra distilled spirits are also 0 insulin. They give you 100 cal per drink but they also increase your metabolism and eat up atleast a little of their calorie load. Very similar to MCT oil or butyric acid.
Then when you have all the extra calories, you have no insulin to store it. In any case I try to drink slow enough that I am under the 1 an hr mark. but I can also tell you I am keeping weight and I am going to the blood test tomorrow so I'll be able to tell for sure.

All foods create response in the body. Fat creates far less than carbs and protein. Protein creates less than carbs. But excess protein can create carbs .Even fibre can create response in the body. Alcohol may start with zero carbs, but it does contain calories and inhibits fat burning. For all we know, it may super sensitize the body to absorb and hang on to any calories it encounters. We simply don't know 100% of how the body works , in health or in derangement, and we might still have this same discussion 20 years from now, provided both of us survive our experiments.

Alcohol is said to do the opposite of what you're saying, especially when in excess.
I'm making a stretch that if I drink in moderation, but not eat anything that is the same as drinking to excess.

It's the same. Drinking w/o food in the stomach means alcohol can run amok with nothing to act as a brake.

I am hoping so. However I drink a lot slower. Anyway the calorie count theory IMHO has already fallen on its face.
The last 6 months I have had 2500 cal a day on average 1/2 in alcohol and 1/2 in fat with minimal carbs and entirely and easily maintained my weight. This in spite of 2500 fasting and over 4000 when eating. Which on average was every day, but there is some stretches of as long as 4 days without eating in there.
Anyway looking forward to a few days atleast without alchy.

srinath_69 wrote:The bullet tears through flesh and bone and no understanding is required - excellent, let the bullet be made of styrofoam.

The Newcastle study was successful in reversing diabetes. The metaphorical bullet hit its target and took it out.

All your talk of insulin has zero published evidence behind it. Your talk of alcohol is completely unrelated.

sharperhawk wrote:

srinath_69 wrote:The bullet tears through flesh and bone and no understanding is required - excellent, let the bullet be made of styrofoam.

The Newcastle study was successful in reversing diabetes. The metaphorical bullet hit its target and took it out.

All your talk of insulin has zero published evidence behind it. Your talk of alcohol is completely unrelated.

Sorry, every success case following a Low carb diet is an insulin success story. if you want to say that all that is just anecdotal and not a published evidence, sure, you are free to do so.
New castle study is 1/3 the calories without changing the macro composition thereby getting a 1/3 insulin response or so. Thereby proving the insulin point again.

Alcohol and fat worth 2500 cal a day + 1000-2500 in low carb food doesn't cause weight gain, once again proving insulin is what counts and not calories - not that anyone ever cares about that, its just n=1 case and no one needs to drink 1000+ cal in alcohol or eat 1000+ in nuts and fat a day.

Published evidence -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490021/
I can find more, but literally every LCHF success is a insulin lowering story. And we all know how much LCHF is "loved" by the medical establishment.

srinath_69 wrote:Published evidence -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490021/

That study excluded people with diabetes. That is not comparable to reversing diabetes.

sharperhawk wrote:

srinath_69 wrote:Published evidence -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490021/

That study excluded people with diabetes. That is not comparable to reversing diabetes.

Hyperinsulinemia is basically pre-diabetes. They cant be taking diabetics off medication obviously, and we all know how much the national anything "loves" a low carb recomendation.

Sorry, Srinath, but according to the first paragraph of the opening message, the 300 recruits had been diagnosed as type2 diabetics in the preceding 6 years.

Oops, sorry again. I was still referring to the Newcastle Study. Mea culpa.

srinath_69 wrote:They cant be taking diabetics off medication obviously

Actually, that was exactly what they did in the Newcastle study...

The people assigned to the diet group stopped any diabetes drugs they were taking on the same day they began the diet.

The reason they used a low-calorie liquid formula diet is simply because it's easier to control.

Taylor stresses that the study only addressed people diagnosed relatively recently — within the past six years — and that the effect may not apply to more long-term patients. That’s because as the disease continues, he says, insulin-producing cells start to die off. Initially, the cells slowly shut down, entering a so-called resting state. Those are the cells that weight loss can re-activate.

But left in this state too long, the cells eventually die and cannot be revived.

If enough cells die; so does the person. However, I came across a reference months ago but didn't follow it up- that there are insulin receptors all over the body, including the brain. Doggoneit! I also was left with the impression that other cells could produce small amounts of insulin, but haven't found it again to verify my first impression. If I can find it, I will post a link.

Paysan wrote:If enough cells die; so does the person. However, I came across a reference months ago but didn't follow it up- that there are insulin receptors all over the body, including the brain. Doggoneit! I also was left with the impression that other cells could produce small amounts of insulin, but haven't found it again to verify my first impression. If I can find it, I will post a link.

Taylor is talking about the beta cells in the pancreas.

This is from the first study by the way:

http://www.nhslothian.scot.nhs.uk/Services/A-Z/DiabetesService/PatientsCarers/Documents/SJH%20NEWCASTLE%20DIET%20BOOKLET2012.pdf

Posted by Paysan in wrong topic. Can't find option to move 1 post so:

Paysan wrote:While perusing the web, came across this quote on Dr Mercola's site from Jan 2/18 . He was discussing fasting and intermittent fasting as an aid to longevity.
"It bears mentioning that Longo's fasting mimicking diet is not a water-only fast. The fasting mimicking diet involves restricting your calories to 800 to 1,100 calories per day for five days each month, opposed to no-calorie fasting. It was primarily developed to improve compliance, as many find a five-day water-only fast to be too difficult. The low-calorie strategy also helps reduce the likelihood of adverse side effects, while retaining the benefits."
And, of course, one of those benefits was reducing risk factors of diabetes. If you can reduce enough of those risk factors, IMHO, you will escort yourself out of diabetes. Weight loss is the biggie. How that weight loss happens is what we're discussing here.

For me, the biggest takeaway from this study is that a simple lifestyle change can reverse Type 2 diabetes. I think that anyone who believes in the importance of how we live our daily lives for health should rejoice.

It seems likely that many possible ways to achieve the same end through a hypocaloric diet can be found. Maybe weight loss could be more gradual. Maybe a very-low-calorie diet can be done with a couple of breaks, instead of three months straight. Maybe a LCHF version will work. And so on. Compliance is always an issue, which is why they chose a liquid diet for a relatively short period. But different people will find different regimes more compatible, and so long as they are losing the fat in the pancreas and the liver and keeping it off, they almost certainly have options to explore.

sharperhawk wrote:For me, the biggest takeaway from this study is that a simple lifestyle change can reverse Type 2 diabetes. I think that anyone who believes in the importance of how we live our daily lives for health should rejoice.

I agree. It could very well be that low cal/lower fat is what works best to reverse it. On the other hand there are other options to explore that might have the same impact. However there's hope.

Paysan wrote:If enough cells die; so does the person. However, I came across a reference months ago but didn't follow it up- that there are insulin receptors all over the body, including the brain. Doggoneit! I also was left with the impression that other cells could produce small amounts of insulin, but haven't found it again to verify my first impression. If I can find it, I will post a link.

The insulin receptors in the brain aspect I actually stumbled onto it from my personal experience. After losing a bunch of weight and low carbing my way to the 150's when I tried the potato hack, I would feel sharply sleepy 20min after eating it. If I fought that feeling for ~20 min, I'd entirely be awake and not sleepy at all for hours. The surge of insulin from the glucose and the brain reacting to that was my best explanation.

sharperhawk wrote:For me, the biggest takeaway from this study is that a simple lifestyle change can reverse Type 2 diabetes. I think that anyone who believes in the importance of how we live our daily lives for health should rejoice.

It seems likely that many possible ways to achieve the same end through a hypocaloric diet can be found. Maybe weight loss could be more gradual. Maybe a very-low-calorie diet can be done with a couple of breaks, instead of three months straight. Maybe a LCHF version will work. And so on. Compliance is always an issue, which is why they chose a liquid diet for a relatively short period. But different people will find different regimes more compatible, and so long as they are losing the fat in the pancreas and the liver and keeping it off, they almost certainly have options to explore.

Low carb medium protein and high fat works well and better yet, I will comply with it. Even better, I enjoy it and the foods that qualify are the @ top of my favorites list. Low calorie is definitely not for me. I fast and eat at random for the fun factor and the added blessing by my lovely - I am not in an obligation to procure and prepare food for anyone, so I eat for my own pleasure, if I didn't feel like eating I dont have to even go near food. How can I argue with that.