I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes about a year and a half ago, at the time I had an HBA1C of 8.2 (6.0 is the top end of normal). The first thing I did when I got home was google "cure for diabetes", the newcastle diet is what came up. After 6 months of the usual medication (metformin etc.) I decided to give it a go. You can see my log, which includes medication, supplements, exercise, total calories per day and BG readings 5 times a day[1]. You can see that it took me just 12 days to come off the medication and that in the following 2 months I was able to maintain excellent BG control.
A year later I'm still off the medication, my last HBA1C was 5.7 which is considered normal. Maintaining that does require daily exercise (and I do mean _every_ day) and good diet management but I've found it a fairly easy regime to follow (half an hour of 80% intensity is enough most days).
My quality of life is now excellent (it was terrible on the medication) and I'm able to eat a little more freely. The only big differences regarding diet are that I now only drink a couple of times a month and I don't go near anything with wheat flour in it.
EDIT: google docs doesn't seem to allow me to share the docs publicly (I can only share with specific email addresses or within my domain) so I've made them available as csv and excel files.
Given that Type 2 diabetes is generally believed to be caused by diet, it makes sense that diet could fix it as well.
My personal hypothesis is that some people have intestinal bacteria that are really, really good at breaking down sugar very quickly. So when you eat high GI foods, your gut turns them into glucose very quickly releases them into your blood, and your body has to deal accordingly. IMO that would help explain why people who are very obese get type 2 with some regularity, but how otherwise healthy adults who are simply moderately overweight can also develop it.
A corollary to this hypothesis is that the ability of your (personal) intestinal bacteria to break down different types of foods at different rates means that there is no such thing as a "universal diet". Some people will be healthiest eating large amounts of red meat, some will be healthiest on a high-carb diet, while others may need something more fiber-rich (assuming appropriate calorie control, of course). This appears to be borne out anecdotally, with diet plans having different efficacy on different people.
Intestinal flora is something the medical community is just now beginning to research and understand. There's something unique that happens in our intestines, and while there's obviously a genetic component to it, the genes your intestinal flora carry may be just as important. We don't understand the system or the feedback loops (maybe eating too much sugar causes these bacteria to over-populate the intestines in some people and crowd out other bacteria?) The point is, there's a whole lot we don't know about how our bodies process the nutrients we take in. There are a lot of studies underway, but holistic medicine is pretty obviously a real thing -- we just don't understand the science behind it yet.
But the word "dominates" should really be emphasized there because there is growing evidence that gut microbiota can help with breaking down lactose even when you lack the ability to produce lactase.
It isn't that nuanced; lactose intolerance is uncomfortable because there are microorganisms breaking down the lactose and releasing gas (and what not). Those studies are looking at whether bacteria that do not produce as much gas can colonize our digestive systems.
If the lactose passed through intact, it wouldn't be a problem. If enzymes weren't responsible for breaking down sucrose and there were bacteria doing it, HFCS would probably be even more popular.
> Intestinal flora is something the medical community is just now beginning to research and understand.
What's interesting is that intestinal flora can take time to adjust in response to dietary changes (wish I could find some good figures on precisely how long, but the whole field of research on the subject is so new). This means that those on a seemingly unhealthy diet can initially do far worse switching over to 'unfamiliar' healthy food as their gut flora are presented with something they have little 'experience' digesting.
In my own experience, cutting out grains and milk from my diet resulted in a good few months of problems before things settled down again which seemed very counter intuitive until I read up on the significant role gut bacteria play in digestion.
I know when I started eating paleo, I had really painful gas (to me and everyone else) for a few months. Then, after a while, I could eat all the broccoli I could stand and it was fine.
> My personal hypothesis is that some people have intestinal bacteria that are really, really good at breaking down sugar very quickly. So when you eat high GI foods, your gut turns them into glucose very quickly releases them into your blood
Are there such bacteria? I only know about intestinal bacteria breaking down indigestable carbohydrate (also called soluble "fiber") into short-chain fatty acids. Other carbs except fructose (handled by liver) should be broken down into glucose via digestive enzymes prior to colon throughout the digestive tract starting in your mouth.
> IMO that would help explain why people who are very obese get type 2 with some regularity, but how otherwise healthy adults who are simply moderately overweight can also develop it.
Well many obese also never develop T2DM either. The non-fat people who become T2 might have been on a high-carb-low-fat regimen rather than a high-carb-high-fat regimen.
> A corollary to this hypothesis is that the ability of your (personal) intestinal bacteria to break down different types of foods at different rates means that there is no such thing as a "universal diet". Some people will be healthiest eating large amounts of red meat, some will be healthiest on a high-carb diet, while others may need something more fiber-rich (assuming appropriate calorie control, of course).
This seems to assume an unduly large role for intestinal bacteria in digestion. Stomach acid and digestive enzymes do the bulk of the work prior, and colon bacteria get leftovers that our bodies don't handle "natively" AFAIK. Exception is some cause or other flushing stuff down the tract prematurely prior to absorption, perhaps something dangerous that stomach acid didn't neutralize, enzyme problems, overstuffing or what not..
> Intestinal flora is something the medical community is just now beginning to research and understand. There's something unique that happens in our intestines
I agree but people shouldn't forget bacteria only get the leftovers and if bacteria are found to be the cause of weight or health issues, maybe one should first evaluate whether enzymes are broken or too much (improperly preprocessed) cellulose is being consumed?
> Exception is some cause or other flushing stuff down the tract prematurely prior to absorption, perhaps something dangerous that stomach acid didn't neutralize, enzyme problems, overstuffing or what not..
I've read some advice about not drinking water with meals for this reason. The idea is that it will dilute your stomach acid making it more basic and less effective.
> There are a lot of studies underway, but holistic medicine is pretty obviously a real thing -- we just don't understand the science behind it yet.
"[W]e just don't understand the science behind it yet" because there is none. Holistic medicine is quackery that has failed scientific tests if efficacy time and time again.
I don't mean that the current "practice" of holistic medicine is quackery -- but that the principles behind it (what you eat can cause/treat certain diseases), when proven with proper scientific methodology, aren't entirely crazy.
"Behind the mania is a widely used, inexpensive generic pill for Type 2 diabetes called metformin. Scientists are planning a clinical trial to see if the drug can delay or prevent some of the most devastating diseases of advanced age, from heart ailments to cognitive decline to cancer. To test the pill, gerontologists at 14 aging centers around the U.S. will follow 3,000 seniors for six years. Half the seniors involved would get the drug, while the others would receive a placebo."
There's no doubt about it that metformin does lower your BG. Depending on the person though the side-effects can be pretty nasty. Personally I had a lot of stomach problems (which I've never had before or since) and I found that I was unable to exercise because I would have a hypo after just 10 minutes. I also had trouble staying awake, I'd often be slumped in my chair and would need to take a 20min siesta after lunch. I'm a fit 36 year old who's used to exercising a lot and having good energy levels so I found this situation difficult to get used to.
Excuse my ignorance, but this does not seem any way unconventional.
It seems to me that you are treating your condition without medication, not reversing it. Exercise and regulating your blood sugar using diet is what doctors suggest but not many people follow it. You still have permanently increased insulin resistance and you must stay on your exercise and diet to prevent it getting worse.
Note they're using the term "reversed" not "cured".
> So, nearly four years down the line, is my diet still successful? Yes – but it takes close monitoring and willpower. We all know that diets are notoriously hard to stick to – unless the incentive is powerful enough. In my case, it is.
> …and the 1,750-calorie diet he follows now
As the theory goes some people are genetically predisposed to accumulating fat within the pancreas which causes insulin resistance. The (hypothesised) reason that the diet works is that it causes the body to use up fat from within the pancreas to the point where it begins to function again. Unfortunately the tendency remains, without continued management the pancreas will accumulate the fat again and the diabetic symptoms will return. This is borne out by the fact that a year later many of the original participants were experiencing diabetic symptoms once again.
Speaking from personal experience, with the same diet and level of exercise I see vastly different numbers. I've been through the process twice, the second time because I injured my back and wasn't able to exercise for two months. When I restarted my previous regime I found that my numbers stabilised at a far higher range than I'd achieved previously. I went through the same diet process again (for 2 weeks) after which I returned to the same regime. My numbers are now stabilised at the lower level that I'd achieved before.
> You still have permanently increased insulin resistance and you must stay on your exercise and diet to prevent it getting worse.
Dr. Taylor's research, along with other research currently being done, is demonstrating that insulin resistance is not permanent as was once believed. The problem is, as ollysb noted below, getting people to make the lifestyle changes necessary and stick to them. Most people are not willing and able to make the changes required to keep the disease from progressing, let alone increase their insulin sensitivity again.
Thanks for sharing your specific numbers. My A1cs as a Type 1 Diabetic are usually in the low-to-mid 6s. My latest just a few months ago was 6.4. My doctor's happy with that, and described it as the levels typical of a pre-Diabetic. That seems pretty good to me, considering the constant attention I have to pay to it and the ease with which it can go badly.
Michael Mosley's documentary, ”Eat, Fast and Live Longer” (about the health benefits of calorie restriction) is also interesting in the context of this article:
the plank (an exercise to help lose excess fat round the stomach)
This is incorrect. The plank is an excellent exercise for building core strength (much better than situps), but it does not help lose excess fat around the stomach more or less so than any other exercise does.
the plank (an exercise to help lose excess fat round the stomach)
Cringe. Hard to take the writer seriously after this statement. The rest of the article seemed fine so I googled around to see if there was some stunning new research showing the plank (or any specific movement) spot-reducing fat. Nope.
Also the weirdly specific forearm muscles to soak up excess energy before it gets turned into fat. I'm no doctor, but even I know that the thigh muscles are much, much bigger than the forearms in nearly everyone.
Yeah. If it doesn't explicitly state a type, 99% of the time it's about Type 2. As a Type 1 Diabetic, it's really frustrating that these unrelated diseases have the same name. I've been asked more than once if I ate a lot of candy as a kid.
Came here to ensure that was discussed. It's really kind of a shame that there's as much confusion about the types of diabetes as there is. I've taken to referring to them, in an EXCEEDINGLY reductive manner, as "autoimmune diabetes" and "cheeseburger diabetes."
My brother has autoimmune diabetes (aka Type 1). We give to and volunteer with the JDRF as a result, because its mission is laser focussed on type 1 related research. I do not give to or support the ADA, because their efforts are really diffuse and seem to focus more on the cheeseburger type.
You could also just say that one type of diabetes is about people who love cheeseburgers by nature, and the other one about people whose genes are broken in a different way (also by nature). Now, if you want to discuss which one is more important: maybe the one which occurs more commonly and is easier to cure?
Just to dispel a common misconception, the cause of type 1 diabetes remains unknown. There is no conclusive proof that the condition is genetic.
AFAIK there are certain correlations with the condition and the presence of certain gene combinations, and hypotheses abound that it is indeed a genetic condition, but they are still just hypotheses - research is ongoing.
actually this worked for me, I had high blood sugar and high blood pressure and I solved both with low carbs diet and eating healthy. It's like the article say, eating healthy will help no matter what but yeah it's hard to stop eating junk.
I'd warn people not to pay too much attention to the advice that the american diabetes association provides. The targets it recommends are well known to cause damage to the body (you should be avoiding anything above a BG of 140 at any time) and it's dietary recommendations are contrary to the advice I've ever received from anyone that has had good results maintaining diabetes. Just to pick up on the two points you mention, I would never consume fruit unless accompanied by exercise and a low-carb diet is recommended by any consultant or nutrionist that I've ever spoken to.
There is an Indian Facebook group about Paleo diet, where dozens if not hundreds of people followed simple LCHF diet and reversed their type 2 diabetics and got type 1 under control among other improvements. Few physicians also got cured and they started advocating the diet. These doctors are working towards getting Indian Diabetes Association to recognize LCHF diet as a viable remedy.
I'm a bit surprised the article didn't come with a "don't try this diet without first consulting a medical professional" warning, since starving yourself for a month is a pretty drastic lifestyle change.
Is there a difference? Type II diabetes is largely a lifestyle disease. It develops because of the way we eat and (don't) exercise. If you have chronic wrist problems from typing all day, I'd say that eliminating the typing is a legitimate cure. If you have diabetes because you eat too much and exercise too little, I'd say eating less and exercising more is a legitimate cure as well.
For eight weeks, the patients drank a diet milkshake three times daily and ate some 200 grams of non-starchy vegetables, totaling about 700 calories a day.
The average weight loss among participants was about 14 kg (33 pounds). And in many of them, the diabetes disappeared. Nearly half the participants had no symptoms of diabetes for nearly six months after they went back to eating normally.
Type 2 Diabetes can 100% be "cured" by a low fat vegan diet. Sorry you don't need a pill, you need to wake up and face the fact that you are poising yourself with your high fat diet.
FAT causes diabetes (and high blood pressure and heart disease) NOT Sugar. Dietary fat clogs up your bloodstream preventing insulin from effectively doing it's job.
The current science does not support this position. The current science basically says there is an interplay between fats and carbs, and that fat tends to clog your arteries when consumed in the presence of a caloric surplus, usually brought on via carbs. Low fat diets seem to work provided they are high in fiber, and high fat diets seem to work provided they are low in carbs. High fat, high carb seems to be where we see the biggest issues.
So while you actually might be right, that in many cases a low fat vegan diet helps T2 diabetes, it's only one of many strategies to arrive at a suitable diet.
I am not saying it is the only way... but it is the best way to prevent/cure T2 diabetes without causing other issues. If you have T2 diabetes and don't want to adopt a diet that will expose you to high blood pressure, stroke, heart disease, kidney issues, gallbladder removal, etc.. a very low fat diet is the solution. Just do it you will be happy you did.
The fact is: fat tastes good. Nobody want's to give up bacon and cheese so we keep looking for ways to say it is "OK". Big Pharma really wants you to keep eating your fats too. They make billions of dollars a year selling people drugs to offset their lack of will power.
> but [a vegan diet] is the best way to prevent/cure T2 diabetes without causing other issues.
There is basically no science that allows you to state this confidently.
> The fact is: fat tastes good. Nobody want's to give up bacon and cheese so we keep looking for ways to say it is "OK". Big Pharma really wants you to keep eating your fats too. They make billions of dollars a year selling people drugs to offset their lack of will power.
It's been repeatedly shown that basically all fats, even the once thought of as "bad" like saturated fats, do not clog arteries (or raise cholesterol, while we are here) when not in the presence of caloric surplus. I don't follow it, but the success many have had with the keto diet is one great example of this. It's just not as simple as you are saying.
Could you recommend some useful links about this? In particular it is interesting to know if there is some range with fat/carbo ratio when the result is particularly bad.
This is a nice digest of a lot of the science around fats, that while somewhat biased, is a pretty good summary and includes links to studies should you want to dig deeper.
That mostly defends high-fat/low-carbo diet. What I am looking for is where exactly should one put boundaries.
For example, if both high-fat/low-carbo and very-high-carbo/no-fat are good, can one combine them? If one eats very high fat meal, how long one has to wait before eating carbos-without-fat? Is it just few hours? Or should it be 16 hours? Or should one just not do that?
I think those are great questions and anyone who gives you a confident answer on them is kind of full of shit. The bottom line is nutrition is just not that well understood scientifically, and since there is so much evidence emerging showing people reacting pretty differently to the same dietary inputs I think it's that much harder to answer nutritional questions that precisely and build nutritional models that work broadly.
Yeah, I think this post is good at explaining the nuance that there are thresholds at which "things become different," but I'm not sure the thresholds he provides are well supported, which is what I thought you were looking for. No one is going to be able to say 30g fat / 100 g of carbs is ok but 30g fat / 110g carbs is not.
Please don't trust your health to people selling Paelo diet t-shirts, books, and diet bars... A high fat diet will kill you in the long term. Idea: Call 10 cardiologists, ask them if you should increase your fat consumption... then call 10,000 more and hear the same thing.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fat+causes+diab...
I totally agree, which I why I encourage you to read the numerous studies linked in the post. Note that you've basically said: don't trust your bullshit experts, trust this random youtube search. I'm asking you to read the bullshit expert's digestion of the science, and then read the science, and then tell me where the bullshit expert has gotten it wrong.
I totally agree that the nutritional "science" community is filled with snakeoil salesmen and that you have to careful.
But also, note that there is a difference between increasing your fat consumption absent of any other changes to your diet, and moving to a diet based mostly on fats, and that those changes have been pretty well described by me, to you, in our previous posts. I would agree that if you make no other changes, for the every day person increasing fat is bad. But literally no one is telling you to do that. NO ONE.
Vegetarianism/veganism may help with diabetes, but it's probably not because of reducing fat intake.
"Less fat" has been the dominant message since the late 70's, and it's coincided with the explosion in the rate of consumption of sugar, overweight people and diabetics. The epidemiology suggests you're mistaken.
Many vegans have a predisposition to hate fat and ignore contrary medical research because a lot of dietary fat in the average person's diet is gained through the consumption of animal products.
I agree. A high fat vegan diet is also bad. You need to bring saturated fat near 0 and keep the rest of your fat intake down to about 10% of total calories.
A year later I'm still off the medication, my last HBA1C was 5.7 which is considered normal. Maintaining that does require daily exercise (and I do mean _every_ day) and good diet management but I've found it a fairly easy regime to follow (half an hour of 80% intensity is enough most days).
My quality of life is now excellent (it was terrible on the medication) and I'm able to eat a little more freely. The only big differences regarding diet are that I now only drink a couple of times a month and I don't go near anything with wheat flour in it.
EDIT: google docs doesn't seem to allow me to share the docs publicly (I can only share with specific email addresses or within my domain) so I've made them available as csv and excel files.
[1]
CSV - https://www.dropbox.com/s/tr1xwd3l6ziiows/newcastle_diet.csv...
Excel - https://www.dropbox.com/s/12tjf23oz7ihq4d/newcastle_diet.xls...