Fasting - A History Dr Jason Fung

Part 5 - Fasting Myths - is up:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-myths-part-5/

Indy51 wrote:Part 5 - Fasting Myths - is up:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-myths-part-5/

Many thanks Indy .....  

All the best Jan

Part 6 - Fasting Regimens - now posted: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-regimens-part-6/

Indy51 wrote:Part 6 - Fasting Regimens - now posted: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-regimens-part-6/

Thanks again Indy for posting another excellent link to Jason Fung.

All the best Jan

Part 7 - Longer Fasting Regimens now posted:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/longer-fasting-regimens-part-7/

Jenny Ruhl doesn't post many updates these days, but when she does, it's worth the wait. Her latest post is about further evidence that gastric bypass does NOT cure Type 2. Makes regimes like intermittent fasting and the Newcastle Protocol even more attractive if doctors are trying to push you towards surgery.

http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/more-evidence-that-gastric-bypass-is.html

Hmm... Dr Roy Taylor who promotes the Newcastle Protocol does not really seem to be convinced about cure saying in his write up for the The DiRECT study that the diet does not cure diabetes only that losing weight may help to put patients into remission. I wonder if he thinks the same about gastric bypass (he has also written papers about its results).

Will the diet cure Type 2 diabetes?
The diet being studied is not a 'quick fix' for Type 2 diabetes. It should help people with Type 2 diabetes who take part in the research to lose weight – specifically the fat in and around their liver and pancreas. This should, in turn, help to put their Type 2 diabetes into remission. It is likely that some people who take part in the research will find the low-calorie diet challenging and every participant will have to work hard to keep weight off in the long-term in order to maintain Type 2 diabetes remission.

It also looks like the emphasis of the study is just low calorie diets and that he does not recommend that type II diabetics follow the low calorie diet until more is known. And I see no mention of low calorie plant based diets in the DiRECT study write up.

Coupled with what Jenny said this sounds like a big comedown for the Newcastle Protocol.

See site.

OldTech wrote:Hmm... Dr Roy Taylor who promotes the Newcastle Protocol does not really seem to be convinced about cure saying in his write up for the The DiRECT study that the diet does not cure diabetes only that losing weight may help to put patients into remission. I wonder if he thinks the same about gastric bypass (he has also written papers about its results).

Will the diet cure Type 2 diabetes?
The diet being studied is not a 'quick fix' for Type 2 diabetes. It should help people with Type 2 diabetes who take part in the research to lose weight – specifically the fat in and around their liver and pancreas. This should, in turn, help to put their Type 2 diabetes into remission. It is likely that some people who take part in the research will find the low-calorie diet challenging and every participant will have to work hard to keep weight off in the long-term in order to maintain Type 2 diabetes remission.

It also looks like the emphasis of the study is just low calorie diets and that he does not recommend that type II diabetics follow the low calorie diet until more is known. And I see no mention of low calorie plant based diets in the DiRECT study write up.

Coupled with what Jenny said this sounds like a big comedown for the Newcastle Protocol.

See site.

I guess I'm a bit confused by the point you're trying to make. I don't think anyone is claiming the NP is a "cure", as opposed to the doctors who've been claiming that gastric bypass is. If bypass is no more effective than any other kind of weight loss method, then surely people are better off not having it done if the only reason it's been "sold" to them is as a non-existent cure?

The effectiveness of any kind of weight loss to create "remission" or "reversal" or whatever term you want to use will of course depend on maintaining the weight loss longer term.

Indy51 wrote:

OldTech wrote:Hmm... Dr Roy Taylor who promotes the Newcastle Protocol does not really seem to be convinced about cure saying in his write up for the The DiRECT study that the diet does not cure diabetes only that losing weight may help to put patients into remission. I wonder if he thinks the same about gastric bypass (he has also written papers about its results).

Will the diet cure Type 2 diabetes?
The diet being studied is not a 'quick fix' for Type 2 diabetes. It should help people with Type 2 diabetes who take part in the research to lose weight – specifically the fat in and around their liver and pancreas. This should, in turn, help to put their Type 2 diabetes into remission. It is likely that some people who take part in the research will find the low-calorie diet challenging and every participant will have to work hard to keep weight off in the long-term in order to maintain Type 2 diabetes remission.

It also looks like the emphasis of the study is just low calorie diets and that he does not recommend that type II diabetics follow the low calorie diet until more is known. And I see no mention of low calorie plant based diets in the DiRECT study write up.

Coupled with what Jenny said this sounds like a big comedown for the Newcastle Protocol.

See site.

I guess I'm a bit confused by the point you're trying to make. I don't think anyone is claiming the NP is a "cure", as opposed to the doctors who've been claiming that gastric bypass is. If bypass is no more effective than any other kind of weight loss method, then surely people are better off not having it done if the only reason it's been "sold" to them is as a non-existent cure?

The effectiveness of any kind of weight loss to create "remission" or "reversal" or whatever term you want to use will of course depend on maintaining the weight loss longer term.

I have been blogging about Roy Taylor for some time. It would appear from the Roy Taylor quote from OldTech.

"The diet being studied is not a 'quick fix' for Type 2 diabetes. It should help people with Type 2 diabetes who take part in the research to lose weight – specifically the fat in and around their liver and pancreas. This should, in turn, help to put their Type 2 diabetes into remission. It is likely that some people who take part in the research will find the low-calorie diet challenging and every participant will have to work hard to keep weight off in the long-term in order to maintain Type 2 diabetes remission."

Roy is now saying what many knew some years ago, there is no quick fix. Therefore, to reverse type two diabetes a regime has to be put in place for life, not for a few months. So, why starve yourself for a few months then put a regime in place that works i.e low carb higher fat, why not go the only way that works long term from the start.

From the low carb diabetic blog over a year ago. BTW the reference at the bottom of this post "VLCD" means very low calorie not very low carb.

When I first heard of the Roy Taylor's how to cure type two diabetes plan a couple of years back, I said it was ridiculous, nothing has changed. Roy is back on the case, this time a larger study, but pretty much the same madcap scheme. This is how it works. You get some overweight diabetics to starve themselves for a few months, guess what, they lose some weight, gor blimey who would have thought that ! You need to be a Prof to work that out eh. Some blubber is lost from the Liver and Pancreas and Bob's ya uncle off  you go lad. By the way, the grub eaten on this diet is a big earner for food I consider junk and unnecessary, and contains far more carbs than I would use in a good meat and three veg meal.

So, what happens when these 'cured diabetics' go back to eating the foods and sensible amount of calories after the trial. My money is they will be back to square one, unless of course they grow more beta cells, which is impossible.

Read Hannah Sutter's full post here. http://healthinsightuk.org/2014/03/12/why-very-low-calorie-diets-vlcd-wont-solve-the-diabetes-crisis/

"The study that triggered this grant was small, lasted 8 weeks and was carried out by Prof Roy Taylor a couple of years ago. It involved 11 adults with type 2 diabetes who followed an 800 calorie-a-day diet that came from low-calorie shakes provided by Nestle. Guess what –if you starve people they will lose weight fast. I am not sure you need a study to show that but what you really want is a study that shows what happens after they have been on a starvation diet.

The new large study, which has now started, is being supported by a firm called Counterweight which is controlled by Cambridge Nutritional Food Limited which in turn owns the Cambridge Diet. The subjects in the trial will be getting Counterweight shakes, the same ones that Cambridge Nutritional Food Ltd has been flogging shakes to the obese and the overweight for over 40 years.

To be fair to the founder of Cambridge Diet, Dr Alan Howard, started his work in the 1960s with a genuine wish to find a practical solution to obesity and created the prototype of the current VLCD shake. By 1984 this great idea had been commercialised and is now a multimillion pound business selling shakes to the obese worldwide. Turnover of Cambridge Nutritional Food Limited last year was approximately £36,000,000

So Diabetes UK is throwing 2.5 million of cash at two professors who are busy working with Cambridge Diet to prove that, notwithstanding 40 years of unimpressive results, a VLCD is the way to solve the UK crises of obesity and diabetes."

@Indy51 it seems to me that at least some people have the idea that the Newcastle diet is a real cure. I know that I got that idea from reading his site. And here is a comment made on Diabetes Forum:

Professor Roy Taylor at the University of Newcastle, an expert on diabetes, talking in a video with somebody that got cured from their diabetes, after going through his program for diabetes reversal, its short 5 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdVH0PBLUEI
His website in detail explaing how people get cured from diabetes.
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/magres/research/diabetes/reversal.htm
Two lectures of him explaining the science behind the cure of type 2, and examples of people having normal bloodsugars after eating a blueberry muffin for instance( the guy in question is this guy)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plg2NXrOrKs
http://www.fend-lectures.org/index.php?menu=view&id=94
https://campus.recap.ncl.ac.uk/Panopto/Pages/Embed.aspx?id=c3bef819-e5f4-4a55-876f-0a23436988ed&v=1
Here is a british journalist from a prestigious british paper who was very thin, but still got diagnoes with diabetes. He went on Newcastle diet and cured his diabetes.
Here are two articles explaining his story.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/may/12/type-2-diabetes-diet-cure
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2385179/I-reversed-diabetes-just-11-days--going-starvation-diet.html
He got cured in the autumn of 2012, and now last updated in 2015, he still has normal bloodsugars. AND he follows crappy standard diet advice, cutting down on fat, and lots of wholegrains.
He has a website where he explains current situation and diet. http://www.reversingtype2diabetes.com/

I also saw in a comment that the Newcastle diet got its inspiration and methods by trying to emulate the success of weight loss surgery with diet alone. Now that the surgery success is in serious doubt, I think that casts considerable doubt on the success of the Newcastle diet (which now seems to be a moving target).

Like Eddie I am going to stick with LCHF.

I guess like all other theories, the evidence will eventually be revealed now that a much larger study is being done. There seems to be a lot of semantics around the word "cure" on a number of diabetes forums. The evidence so far seems to be that a percentage (my memory says around 45% but I could be wrong) of the original participants completely normalised their BG and first phase insulin response after completing the protocol. Only longer term follow up will reveal whether the effects last for any length of time.

I don't see why the protocol can't be compatible with LCHF which is probably the very best way of avoiding weight regain - though it is definitely possible as I've discovered by taking my eye off the ball for a while.

I also think that the Newcastle regime can be helpful for what I would consider true food addicts - anyone who hangs out on diabetes forums has seen the whole "falling off the LCHF wagon" too many time to count. I think the VLCKD method (whether with shakes or real food) can help reset the satiety signals for those people. That's only my theory though. I find reading the experiences of people on the diet fascinating - especially the ones who aren't kidding themselves about "cured for life".

There is also a sub-set of people diagnosed very early who have absolutely crap diets - they clean up their acts, lose weight (by whatever means) and achieve similar results to the ND - ie normalisation of BG and able to pass OGT tests. They then proceed to troll diabetes forums boasting about how many carbs they can now eat, which is great for them, but bloody annoying for those of us whose BG never normalises, no matter what we do to try and flip the switch back.

I'm for whatever works for the individual and I can definitely understand the appeal of VLCKD for the morbidly obese who want to lose weight quickly. Never been in their shoes and can only admire their dedication to trying to turn things around.

The people I really feel for are the weight-loss resistant who can't seem to lose weight no matter what they do - I've also spent enough time at diabetes forums to know such people exist and it must be so difficult for them to deal with, especially with so many dickheads telling them to EL&MM.

Despite losing nearly 20% of my starting weight following LCHF, my BG has never normalised - all it takes is a very small rise in carbs at a meal to let me know that, even when I'm on 30g of carbs a day. If people want to try and reach the BG normalisation that can result from following the ND, I can understand why. If they think it's worth the effort, who am I to quibble with their choice?

Indy51 I pretty much agree with everything you said. In 2014, I toyed with trying the Newcastle diet but could not find enough evidence that it really worked. I was also suspicious that there were not more recent studies showing that it was effective. And it bothered me that it was not real food and seemed to be plant based at the time. So I just stuck to LCHF.

Like you I have lost weight (BMI is now 21 and has been stable for more than a year; BMI at diagnosis was 29) but I am still carb intolerant. If I eat too many my BG spikes. Based on Dr Taylor's current theory I should have lost enough weight to trigger the 'cure' (I am now wearing the same size pants that I wore in college 50 years ago) so it does not seem like a valid theory based on my N=1 experiment.

All in all I find it sad and disappointing.

Indy51 wrote:I guess like all other theories, the evidence will eventually be revealed now that a much larger study is being done. There seems to be a lot of semantics around the word "cure" on a number of diabetes forums. The evidence so far seems to be that a percentage (my memory says around 45% but I could be wrong) of the original participants completely normalised their BG and first phase insulin response after completing the protocol. Only longer term follow up will reveal whether the effects last for any length of time.

I don't see why the protocol can't be compatible with LCHF which is probably the very best way of avoiding weight regain - though it is definitely possible as I've discovered by taking my eye off the ball for a while.

I also think that the Newcastle regime can be helpful for what I would consider true food addicts - anyone who hangs out on diabetes forums has seen the whole "falling off the LCHF wagon" too many time to count. I think the VLCKD method (whether with shakes or real food) can help reset the satiety signals for those people. That's only my theory though. I find reading the experiences of people on the diet fascinating - especially the ones who aren't kidding themselves about "cured for life".

There is also a sub-set of people diagnosed very early who have absolutely crap diets - they clean up their acts, lose weight (by whatever means) and achieve similar results to the ND - ie normalisation of BG and able to pass OGT tests. They then proceed to troll diabetes forums boasting about how many carbs they can now eat, which is great for them, but bloody annoying for those of us whose BG never normalises, no matter what we do to try and flip the switch back.

I'm for whatever works for the individual and I can definitely understand the appeal of VLCKD for the morbidly obese who want to lose weight quickly. Never been in their shoes and can only admire their dedication to trying to turn things around.

The people I really feel for are the weight-loss resistant who can't seem to lose weight no matter what they do - I've also spent enough time at diabetes forums to know such people exist and it must be so difficult for them to deal with, especially with so many dickheads telling them to EL&MM.

Despite losing nearly 20% of my starting weight following LCHF, my BG has never normalised - all it takes is a very small rise in carbs at a meal to let me know that, even when I'm on 30g of carbs a day. If people want to try and reach the BG normalisation that can result from following the ND, I can understand why. If they think it's worth the effort, who am I to quibble with their choice?

You raise some fascinating points Indy, I have some thoughts on points you have raised, I expect I will annoy some people, what's new?

I have read about people that say they cannot lose weight and I am sure some find it harder than others for no fault of their own. If you reduce calories down far enough, it is impossible not to lose weight. Check out people from concentration camps from the second world war in Germany and Poland or soldiers who were prisoners of war in Japan they were skeletal thin. OK a drastic example, but I reckon proves a point. Secondly, with out a good supply of insulin, it is impossible to gain weight no matter how much and what you eat. I have seen photographs of people taken just around the time insulin became available for type one diabetics and they were also skeletal. Within a few months these people regained normal weight. So many times I have read type one's on forum's saying I lost a lot of weight before I was diagnosed. Which leads me to think this.

The type two who is heavily over weight and has trouble losing weight is making lots of insulin still, which works in with Jason Fung's view, why give type two's insulin, it only makes things worse, sounds right to me. Also, many who say they can't lose weight are not sticking to the plan, they talk constantly of falling off the wagon, or getting back to low carb tomorrow or next week etc.

I have got people, diabetics and non diabetics to drop calories to 1200 and maximum 30 carbs per day, the weight has fell off them. Some have stayed low carb and upped the calories to stabilise weight loss and stayed low carb and kept weight stable, others have gone back to their old ways and back went the weight. Some examples we know of. Jimmy Moore and his nemesis Carbsane, both lost massive amounts of weight low carbing and calorie reduction, went off the plan and back went all the weight. Woo has stuck to the plan and has remained slim for years, as has the person some know on here as Libby aka Wiflib.

At the end of the day we are talking about control of insulin, whether natural or injected. Until that is achieved and stabilised good control of BG and weight is not going to happen. Easier for some than others, but possible for almost all. Like you I could never get optimum control. I suspect too much beta cell damage. I got to the 5% club easily but despite 100% effort and low BMI I could never get to the 4% club. I made a decision to stay as I was, rather than use injected insulin or drugs other than Metformin, to try and get into the fours. Seven years on it still works pretty good for me, and more importantly so many others. But I have to stick to the plan, one doughnut or a bag of chips and my BG numbers can go to double figures. So for me diabetes reversed in terms of BG most of the time, but certainly not cured by any stretch of the imagination.

I have been going through my archive of diabetes related photographs and this is a picture I talked about in my last post. I took it as screen shot from a video presentation and the same boy three months on from receiving injected insulin.

Intensive insulin therapy increases the levels of overweight and obesity in Type I diabetics.

Temporal Patterns in Overweight and Obesity in Type 1 Diabetes

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3129711/

Part 8 of Dr Fung's fasting series now published:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/the-ancient-secret-of-weight-loss-fasting-part-8/

Indy51 wrote:Part 8 of Dr Fung's fasting series now published:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/the-ancient-secret-of-weight-loss-fasting-part-8/

Many thanks for posting the link here Indy.

All the best Jan

Part 9 - Caloric restriction vs fasting now posted:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/caloric-reduction-vs-fasting-part-9/

An update on my fasting experiment: I've been doing the 16hr per day intermittent fasting regime for just over 100 days now and finally seeing results. After watching Dr Fung's Capetown lecture, I guess I've finally achieved the above 30% liver fat loss that restores normal fasting BG. I'm under 5.5 most days and have even had a couple of 4.8/4.9s. Going by the same lecture, I still haven't achieved the restoration of beta cell function caused by de-fatting the pancreas that he says takes longer because I'm still spiking above 7.8 after even very low carb meals.

Over this time my BMI has dropped from 25.4 to 22.8 with weight loss of 7kgs. As of the weekend, my waist measurement is finally 80cm.

I'm going to persist with this regime till I reach 120 days and will reassess. The weight loss now is very slow, yet following the regime is not onerous, so I think I can sustain it until I hopefully de-fat the pancreas.

All in all, very happy with the results - I never honestly thought I'd get normal fasting levels so it's great to be proved wrong

Congratulations Indy on your good numbers.

As I have mention before I give at least partial credit to intermittent fasting for my normal numbers. I started intermittent fasting in September 2014. It took until January to see a stable impact. It has now been another 6 months and I still am doing the intermittent fasting (~16 hours). I am also staying in ketosis and eating only two meals with no snacks. I have cheated on the no snacks a few times to no ill effects and I do have a bedtime drink most evenings during my fasting period.

I even have added a few beers (light ale) one or two times a week to no real effect. Although I do see a quick rise to around 5.5 mmol/l around 15 minutes after drinking the beer, it quickly drops back to to around or below 5.0.

Indy51 wrote:Part 9 - Caloric restriction vs fasting now posted:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/caloric-reduction-vs-fasting-part-9/

An update on my fasting experiment: I've been doing the 16hr per day intermittent fasting regime for just over 100 days now and finally seeing results. After watching Dr Fung's Capetown lecture, I guess I've finally achieved the above 30% liver fat loss that restores normal fasting BG. I'm under 5.5 most days and have even had a couple of 4.8/4.9s. Going by the same lecture, I still haven't achieved the restoration of beta cell function caused by de-fatting the pancreas that he says takes longer because I'm still spiking above 7.8 after even very low carb meals.

Over this time my BMI has dropped from 25.4 to 22.8 with weight loss of 7kgs. As of the weekend, my waist measurement is finally 80cm.

I'm going to persist with this regime till I reach 120 days and will reassess. The weight loss now is very slow, yet following the regime is not onerous, so I think I can sustain it until I hopefully de-fat the pancreas.

All in all, very happy with the results - I never honestly thought I'd get normal fasting levels so it's great to be proved wrong

That's brilliant Jill great numbers no wonder your happy  Keep it up and you'll soon be a skinny type 2 like me

Dr Fung has posted Part 10 of his series - Women & Fasting:

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/women-and-fasting-part-10/

Still persisting with the intermittent fasting and the BG levels continue to improve. Weight loss is stalled though. I'm up to Day 122 and will continue in the hopes of maintaining the weight loss and BG improvements.

Thanks for putting this link up Indy.

Pleased to hear your BG levels continue to improve ...  
That surely has to be the most important thing for a diabetic?

All the best Jan

I don't want to discourage anyone specially if they are having success but fasting can't be taken lightly. I have posted before I was on IF on and off, but one day I got a terrible reaction. Because fasting or very low calorie dieting can increase uric acid levels and I got a gout attack that never in my life before had before and wasn't easy to deal with it.

Also water fasting with very little protein done for more than 24hrs can lead to loosing substantial muscle mass that no matter if you are female or male you really can not afford to lose specially if you are going up in age, since is not easy to recover and as diabetic you need. Another thing is that not everyone is healthy enough for a long fast, that is why is important to know before you start. Rapid weight loss will not always make you more healthy. Not every diabetic is insulin resistant, most by the time of diagnosis have some pancreas dysfunction. There are patterns of insulin dysfunctions that one has to be aware, before treating " insulin resistance" that maybe you no longer have.

Dr Jason Funk should be more careful before encouraging everyone to do long water fast, he can get in trouble by not making people aware of potential problems, specially diabetics that can have may many comorbidities .

yoly wrote:I don't want to discourage anyone specially if they are having success but fasting can't be taken lightly. I have posted before I was on IF on and off, but one day I got a terrible reaction. Because fasting or very low calorie dieting can increase uric acid levels and I got a gout attack that never in my life before had before and wasn't easy to deal with it.

Also water fasting with very little protein done for more than 24hrs can lead to loosing substantial muscle mass that no matter if you are female or male you really can not afford to lose specially if you are going up in age, since is not easy to recover and as diabetic you need. Another thing is that not everyone is healthy enough for a long fast, that is why is important to know before you start. Rapid weight loss will not always make you more healthy. Not every diabetic is insulin resistant, most by the time of diagnosis have some pancreas dysfunction. There are patterns of insulin dysfunctions that one has to be aware, before treating " insulin resistance" that maybe you no longer have.

Dr Jason Funk should be more careful before encouraging everyone to do long water fast, he can get in trouble by not making people aware of potential problems, specially diabetics that can have may many comorbidities .

I can't even imagine going 24 hours on only water, so that's unlikely to be a problem for me. Most days I eat more than 1200 calories, so I'm not in starvation mode.

I've never read Dr Fung encouraging people to do long water fasts either - he usually recommends bone broth for the minerals/electrolytes.

He is also very emphatic that diabetics on medications should not fast without medical supervision.

From the articles and reading I've seen I believe most would recommend bone broth and not water.

I have not tried IF but know some who have, and some it has suited and others not.

As I've also said on 'Diet that mimics fasting' thread / topic for me it's LCHF with regular exercise and  good sleep pattern ... but then I am not a diabetic nor do I have any other underlying health problems. I am just someone who finds the LCHF lifestyle suitable.

Forums Blogs are about information, exchange of ideas, recipes, support etc. Whatever lifestyle choice we make care and thought should always be given. We each make our own hopefully informed choice  

All the best Jan