D
Deleted member 21371
Guest
I would just like to point out that although @travellor promotes 'moderation', they actually used the 'Newcastle Diet' to get to the place they're in currently.
The Newcastle Diet is much more extreme than 'Low Carb' can be (of course 'Low Carb' can also be as extreme as desired).
Newcastle is an 800 Calories per day for 8 week regime. The meal replacement shakes consist of 600 calories , 46.4 % of which are carbohydrates , 32.5% of protein and 20.1% of fat.
This equals approx 75 gms of carbohydrates - which is well into the 'Low Carb' and not so far from the 'Ketogenic levels'.
Yet they say that 1,500 to 2,000 calories including up to 130 gms of carbohydrates is exceedingly strict!
Perhaps some do better with meal replacement shakes, but to claim that Low Carb is excessive, unsustainable etc. when compared to Newcastle is just crazy!
Oh, and Newcastle doesn't claim to cure diabetes - just to put it into remission like Low Carb does. The success rates for the two methods are comparable with Low Carb having the edge by upt to 10% more remissions at the 2yr point.
I'm glad we agree the Newcastle Diet is a viable low carb diet.
The number of times I've seen people advised it's mostly carbs and should be avoided is unbelievable.
Sadly, it does seem many people don't look beyond the initial eight weeks, and miss the point the if diabetes is cured, or reversed, (or put into "remission") it's then possible to eat a normal diet, and not have to worry about the pesky carbs for the rest of your life.
And as you say, the old "balanced" diet certainly did you and me no harm.
It was a large bowl of porridge for me this morning, just like my grandmother started the day with.
I'm just back form the gym, breadmaker on for later, and finishing off the last one I made for lunch.
(ok, bit of a cheat with the breadmaker, I'm sure, like mine, your grandparents made bread most days by hand)
Last edited by a moderator: