Report of Prof. Roy Taylor in mainstream newspaper:

[Deleted member 21371]

That makes sense but the Prof's problem is that he talks about Calories which are not a good measure and based on weak science when he should talk about Carbs.

Prof Taylor talks about calories because he's more focused on reversing diabetes for life, so carbs aren't an issue.
He has no interest in advising anyone to go on a low carb diet for life.
Also, there has been no scientific study done about slow weight loss reversing diabetes, so it's a possibility for further trials down the line maybe.

 

[TinaD]

His aim is to demonstrate that reduction of visceral fat which is clogging liver and pancreas is effective in causing diabetes remission. It appears to do so. I agree that not reducing carbs has the danger of interfering in BG control and its concommittant harms. So it would seem does the Prof - see https://www.you.co.uk/professor-roy-taylor-life-without-diabetes-diet/ where he does indicate that diets should be low carb. He doesn't seem set against low carb but takes the pragmatic view that the important thing is to shed the visceral fat by any means which suits the particular person. It does, however, seem silly to me to continue to potentially cause oneself harm from high BG until the fat is lost. Further his idea of low carb, if as high as you state, and my BG levels are at odds. I doubt I could maintain 600-800cals long term and my BG would be sky high on 45% - 53% of a carb laden diet. He recogises that maintaining weight loss is hard but essential so he should be giving clearer advice on hunger limitation. Low carb high protein trumps low calorie high carb in my experience. I had my BG back to normal levels by eating 800 cals at 20g of carbs for 8 weeks. I can manage 1000-1200 in the longer term without overwhelming hunger by limiting carbs to 20g. So I am sticking to his bench mark of back to my youthful jeans but heading to the butcher, fishmonger and the home veggie plot whilst closing my eyes and hurrying past the bakers trying not to breath in the sweet smell of fresh baked bread. Hopefully I can employ the same strategy for maintenance once I can sit down safely in size 10.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

His aim is to demonstrate that reduction of visceral fat which is clogging liver and pancreas is effective in causing diabetes remission. It appears to do so. I agree that not reducing carbs has the danger of interfering in BG control and its concommittant harms. So it would seem does the Prof - see https://www.you.co.uk/professor-roy-taylor-life-without-diabetes-diet/ where he does indicate that diets should be low carb. He doesn't seem set against low carb but takes the pragmatic view that the important thing is to shed the visceral fat by any means which suits the particular person. It does, however, seem silly to me to continue to potentially cause oneself harm from high BG until the fat is lost. Further his idea of low carb, if as high as you state, and my BG levels are at odds. I doubt I could maintain 600-800cals long term and my BG would be sky high on 45% - 53% of a carb laden diet. He recogises that maintaining weight loss is hard but essential so he should be giving clearer advice on hunger limitation. Low carb high protein trumps low calorie high carb in my experience. I had my BG back to normal levels by eating 800 cals at 20g of carbs for 8 weeks. I can manage 1000-1200 in the longer term without overwhelming hunger by limiting carbs to 20g. So I am sticking to his bench mark of back to my youthful jeans but heading to the butcher, fishmonger and the home veggie plot whilst closing my eyes and hurrying past the bakers trying not to breath in the sweet smell of fresh baked bread. Hopefully I can employ the same strategy for maintenance once I can sit down safely in size 10.

Why do you have the impression you need to maintain an 800 calorie diet for the long term?
The link you have referred to specifically states that isn't what you should do?
All the recipes are low fat, and mainly vegetable based, and very much Mediterranean diet style.
I'd be happy with any of them.
I just eat at much as i want to now, including carbs, but just watch my weight and my shape.
So, yes, the third phase carries on, it's just portion control, and not going back to overeating.
Not even 1000-1200 calories long term.
"Finally, the third stage of this plan puts the emphasis on keeping your weight steady long term by eating healthily and keeping portion sizes small. "
Ciabatta in the oven as I type.

 

[DaveB]

Ta
Taylor isn't interested in low carb. He sticks a fairly standard nutritional balance in his Crash Diet of 800 cals - 50% carbs, 35% fats and 15% protein. In his maintenance diet carbs rise to 53%. It's Similar to the traditional advice of the NHS and DiabetesUk- 45 to 60% of cals from carbs depending on activity and job done, upto 35% from fats and 10-20% from protein.

In my email I didn't mention Low Carb. My point was that the use of 'Calories' is not a good measure for what you eat as it's a measure of energy and is not a food group. Hence whenever you use Calories you have to define the food group mix within that energy measure otherwise it's meaningless and the mix is rarely mentioned and I've not seen Prof Taylor mention the food group mix in any of his references. It's much better to refer to carbs as they are the problem and not worry too much about fats and proteins as it's carbs that are the main cause of weight gain and fat storage and the main influencer if you wish to reduce both.

 

[TinaD]

Why do you have the impression you need to maintain an 800 calorie diet for the long term?
The link you have referred to specifically states that isn't what you should do?
All the recipes are low fat, and mainly vegetable based, and very much Mediterranean diet style.
I'd be happy with any of them.
I just eat at much as i want to now, including carbs, but just watch my weight and my shape.
So, yes, the third phase carries on, it's just portion control, and not going back to overeating.
Not even 1000-1200 calories long term.
"Finally, the third stage of this plan puts the emphasis on keeping your weight steady long term by eating healthily and keeping portion sizes small. "
Ciabatta in the oven as I type.

I said a) I couldn't do 800 long term - I doubt anyone but an anorexic pixie could manage more than 8 weeks and b). "longer term" for 1000-1200. I still need to lose more weight to get back to the bench mark. I am glad you can now eat carbs and just watch your weight: I cannot. If I do indulge my FBG takes some getting down again. It sounds as though you may have reversed your Type 2 whilst all I can claim is that I can keep it in remission at the moment. I am well within normal weight range for height (BMI 21) but was super-slim when younger - so I am heading for that as a target to see if I can reverse rather than remit. Liver scan shows no fat but perhaps I am still to heavy for my body - we are all different.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

In my email I didn't mention Low Carb. My point was that the use of 'Calories' is not a good measure for what you eat as it's a measure of energy and is not a food group. Hence whenever you use Calories you have to define the food group mix within that energy measure otherwise it's meaningless and the mix is rarely mentioned and I've not seen Prof Taylor mention the food group mix in any of his references. It's much better to refer to carbs as they are the problem and not worry too much about fats and proteins as it's carbs that are the main cause of weight gain and fat storage and the main influencer if you wish to reduce both.

He doesn't because it's a simple formula he has.
Use balanced shakes, lose weight, reverse diabetes, and don't put the weight back on.
Switch to a diet that maintains it where you want it to be.
That way it doesn't really matter if you believe fat makes you fat or thin.
Carbs certainly aren't any problem to me now.
However, I do limit the fat to be fair, especially saturated fat, and my weight and cholesterol stay where I want them to be.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

I said a) I couldn't do 800 long term - I doubt anyone but an anorexic pixie could manage more than 8 weeks and b). "longer term" for 1000-1200. I still need to lose more weight to get back to the bench mark. I am glad you can now eat carbs and just watch your weight: I cannot. If I do indulge my FBG takes some getting down again. It sounds as though you may have reversed your Type 2 whilst all I can claim is that I can keep it in remission at the moment. I am well within normal weight range for height (BMI 21) but was super-slim when younger - so I am heading for that as a target to see if I can reverse rather than remit. Liver scan shows no fat but perhaps I am still to heavy for my body - we are all different.

I had to hammer my weight to actually reverse my diabetes entirely.
I did a low fat diet for a year, which lost me several stones, but I still hadn't quite reversed it.
Then I did Tesco shakes for 6 weeks, which made me lose more, and I did actually look bad, but that pushed me to the point to reverse my diabetes.
I have put some weight back on since, as I didn't like looking too thin.

 

[AndBreathe]

That makes sense but the Prof's problem is that he talks about Calories which are not a good measure and based on weak science when he should talk about Carbs.

To be honest, Professor Taylor's message in the email exchange was had was to trim up and stay trimmed up. He cares not how individuals lose weight, nor what they choose as a maintenance diet.

In terms of his research, it is much simpler to direct individuals to have the majority of their nutrition from readily dosed products, like shakes. That's easier to achieve consistency that suggesting people have a steak, or whatever. I think we would each agree it's easy to have portion creep where the individual chooses what they eat. If they have a shake based on Xml fluid, plus Y scoopsof powder, that's simpler.

Whatever we think of Professor Taylor's approach he has been a gamechanger in introducing the robust concept of remission/reversal/call it whatever you like. Progression no longer needs to be only for the worse.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

To be honest, Professor Taylor's message in the email exchange was had was to trim up and stay trimmed up. He cares not how individuals lose weight, nor what they choose as a maintenance diet.

In terms of his research, it is much simpler to direct individuals to have the majority of their nutrition from readily dosed products, like shakes. That's easier to achieve consistency that suggesting people have a steak, or whatever. I think we would each agree it's easy to have portion creep where the individual chooses what they eat. If they have a shake based on Xml fluid, plus Y scoopsof powder, that's simpler.

Whatever we think of Professor Taylor's approach he has been a gamechanger in introducing the robust concept of remission/reversal/call it whatever you like. Progression no longer needs to be only for the worse.

I think anyone would advise a type 2 who needs to lose weight to "trim up" regardless. Weigh creeps up, we simply don't, or refuse, to notice it as time goes by. And it often more then we'd admit to.
And, whether or not that leads to a complete reversal or not, it's bound to be the healthier option than saying keep eating as you are.
His research mimics his observations on gastric bypasses, it wasn't simply easier, it was a scientific approach based on what he believed happened, and he managed to prove his observations were correct.
And so the NHS role it out as a proven treatment now.

 

[helli]

I think anyone would advise a type 2 who needs to lose weight to "trim up"

I thought the point of the article was the advice is to lose 15% of your weight when diagnosed with type 2, even if you have a healthy bmi, in order to lose visceral fat.
So not just people who appear to need to lose weight.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

I thought the point of the article was the advice is to lose 15% of your weight when diagnosed with type 2, even if you have a healthy bmi, in order to lose visceral fat.
So not just people who appear to need to lose weight.

Very true.
So, those who just need to "trim up" are looking at losing weight, mostly a stone or more to achieve a reasonable and very visible reduction.
The mirror doesn't lie.
But even so, internal fat can be hard to see, so even that needs an effort to move.
The scales don't lie either, even if you don't look like you need to "trim up" .

I went down from 16 stone to 10.5, I certainly "trimmed up". It would be interesting to hear other people's weight reductions on different diets, most of us on the Newcastle diet have catalogued our journeys.

 

[Gwynn]

Ok low carb, higher fat, higher protein diet. Carbs to below 100g a day usually a lot lower. Cals around 1000 a day but varying. Lowest cals 650 highest cals 1200 in any day

Exercise by walking every day at least 60 minutes (although that will cease when the weather turns really nasty)

Tough at first. Almost second nature now.

I lost 5.5 stone in 9 months.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

Ok low carb, higher fat, higher protein diet. Carbs to below 100g a day usually a lot lower. Cals around 1000 a day but varying. Lowest cals 650 highest cals 1200 in any day

Exercise by walking every day at least 60 minutes (although that will cease when the weather turns really nasty)

Tough at first. Almost second nature now.

I lost 5.5 stone in 9 months.

So, way past what Prof Taylor suggested as a weight loss to achieve remission.
Do you still need to count carbs now?

 

[Gwynn]

Calories only for weight msintenance, and I likr to keep the Carbs to below 150g a day. Like today its 79.9g

I already got to remission thankfully and feel brilliant too.

 

[Deleted member 21371]

Calories only for weight msintenance, and I likr to keep the Carbs to below 150g a day. Like today its 79.9g

I already got to remission thankfully and feel brilliant too.

That's an excellent result.
Even if you normally watch the carbs it's good to be able to splurge without worrying.
I go out too much to bother about carbs personally, but as you say, I watch the weight, for me, that's the easiest way to sort out a maintenance diet.

 

[Sticksman]

Ta
Taylor isn't interested in low carb. He sticks a fairly standard nutritional balance in his Crash Diet of 800 cals - 50% carbs, 35% fats and 15% protein. In his maintenance diet carbs rise to 53%. It's Similar to the traditional advice of the NHS and DiabetesUk- 45 to 60% of cals from carbs depending on activity and job done, upto 35% from fats and 10-20% from protein.

I can’t find what you report in his book, are you using another reference? His vegetarian meals in the crash diet are certainly low carb.

 

[Burylancs]

I can’t find what you report in his book, are you using another reference? His vegetarian meals in the crash diet are certainly low carb.

The figures were from his original project as reported in the Lancet article. Vegetarian meals can't be low carb, they are high carb by definition. If it's not protein or fat it has to be carbohydrate.

 

[helli]

Vegetarian meals can't be low carb, they are high carb by definition.

This is incorrect.
Eggs, cheese, cream, tofu, seitan,… are all vegetarian and low/no carb.

 

[Burylancs]

This is incorrect.
Eggs, cheese, cream, tofu, seitan,… are all vegetarian and low/no carb.

Wow ! Eggs are vegetables ! That's big news.

 

[Eddy Edson]

This is incorrect.
Eggs, cheese, cream, tofu, seitan,… are all vegetarian and low/no carb.

Seeds, nuts, edamame, other beans, mushrooms (blech), spinach, other leaves, other leafy veggies, avocado .... and so on.