# Diet reverses type 2 diabetes



## twilyth (Jun 26, 2011)

It's a very small study but all of the participants had their insulin levels return to normal.

article

small excerpt - if you're interested, you need to read the article.


> The results of the diet
> 
> Under close supervision of a medical team, 11 people who had developed diabetes later in life were put on an extreme diet of just 600 calories a day consisting of liquid diet drinks and non-starchy vegetables. They were matched to a control group of people without diabetes and then monitored over eight weeks. Insulin production from their pancreas and fat content in the liver and pancreas were studied.
> 
> ...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 26, 2011)

600 calories a day?  That's...dangerous.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 26, 2011)

That's not bad for a week or two, especially if it's got all the crap you need in it. It's basically a survivor mode diet, you'll live, and apparently be cured of diabetes. It's funny I kinda always figured if diet causes this state that diet could reverse it. Why is it just now that we're trying this?


----------



## Jetster (Jun 26, 2011)

I ate 600 calories while reading the article


----------



## The_Ish (Jun 26, 2011)

Jetster said:


> I ate 600 calories while reading the article



Which is the problem.. The average male burns about 2-2500 calories by simply existing each day, so I'm not sure how they were thinking. And even IF it would work, i'd rather have diabetes than be restricted to eating a couple of sandwiches or something.


----------



## tuyen (Jun 28, 2011)

The_Ish said:


> Which is the problem.. The average male burns about 2-2500 calories by simply existing each day, so I'm not sure how they were thinking. And even IF it would work, i'd rather have diabetes than be restricted to eating a couple of sandwiches or something.



If you had diabetes, you'd be restricted to a hell of a lot more than just sandwiches.  To say "I'd rather have diabetes" shows true ignorance.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 28, 2011)

agreed watching what my grand mother goes through id never want diabetes im thankful i dont have it and can enjoy what i like.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 28, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 600 calories a day?  That's...dangerous.



For long periods of time, yes.  However, for a week or two or four, not really.  It just forces the body to consume its fat reserves in an expedited manner, which is exactly the point here.

The key afterwards is to continue to to maintain a diet that keeps loosing fat or keeps the fat levels in the body at a health level.



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> That's not bad for a week or two, especially if it's got all the crap you need in it. It's basically a survivor mode diet, you'll live, and apparently be cured of diabetes. It's funny I kinda always figured if diet causes this state that diet could reverse it. Why is it just now that we're trying this?



Actually, I believe that is how this study first came about, people that had been standed with little to no food, came back cured of diabetes.


----------



## erocker (Jun 28, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 600 calories a day?  That's...dangerous.



For two months. I'd say it's worth it for someone with diabetes to do it. You can stuff yourself with low calorie stuff no problem. So it's that, or medications that work half assed, other health issues, etc. I bet if moderate exercise was thrown in the mix, you could go a little higher with the calorie level.


----------



## sneekypeet (Jun 28, 2011)

erocker said:


> you could go a little higher with the calorie level.



says the fat man with a bucket of chicken


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 28, 2011)

Somehow I read the title as "Dirt 2 Cures Diabetes", and was like WTF!?!


----------



## The_Ish (Jun 28, 2011)

tuyen said:


> If you had diabetes, you'd be restricted to a hell of a lot more than just sandwiches.  To say "I'd rather have diabetes" shows true ignorance.



Oh, but I *do* have diabetes. Type 1 though. So i don't *have* to be as restrictive as a type 2.

Now, i can't speak for type 2 diabetes, since they can't inject themselves, thus making it impossible to live an unhealthy lifestyle. Or they could face a premature death, but that's their prerogative i guess.. The point is, i *can* chug a cola *if* i wanted to, but i don't. Just because i know how much insulin it really takes to get all that sugar out of the blood, it's frightening. Apart from the hassle of injecting myself "just for the sake" of having a chilled cola, people automatically assume that just because they don't have diabetes and have to go through the hassle of injecting insulin for every piece of food or candy they shove in their mouths, it's somehow "ok" to them.

Now *that* my friend.. Is true ignorance.

And let me make it clear right here and now. *IF* I choose to, i could pig out at candy and cola all day long, but having type 1 diabetes i have seen this "sugar is bad for you" etc in a different light than most ever will.

I'll give you a good example. 1,5 liters of cola. That's about 60 units of insulin to get the sugars out of the blood (personally tested *once*). A full healthy meal for me on any given day varry between 6-10 units of insulin. But non-diabetics don't have to worry. They don't realize this.

Additionally, i got diabetes at the age of 20, so i *do* know the difference between healthy and diabetic.

Summary is that *if* i choose to, i could live that average lifestyle most people share. You know, nice starchy food and some candy once in a while. But in the end, it's just to much hassle for comfort.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 28, 2011)

The_Ish said:


> Which is the problem.. The average male burns about 2-2500 calories by simply existing each day, so I'm not sure how they were thinking. And even IF it would work, i'd rather have diabetes than be restricted to eating a couple of sandwiches or something.



Wow, you are so wrong. The average sedentary male in this day and age burns 1200-1700 calories. 


Eating nothing but fiberous veggies and drinking water and taking vitamins will allow a overweight person to live and force their fat ass to burn the fat for the store energy that it has. A pound of fat has 4,000 calories. 20 Pounds overweight means you have enough fat to live on for forty days. As long as you maintain a very marginal carbohydrate intake and some protein you can live, well.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 28, 2011)

The_Ish said:


> Oh, but I *do* have diabetes. Type 1 though. So i don't *have* to be as restrictive as a type 2.
> 
> Now, i can't speak for type 2 diabetes, since they can't inject themselves, thus making it impossible to live an unhealthy lifestyle. Or they could face a premature death, but that's their prerogative i guess.. The point is, i *can* chug a cola *if* i wanted to, but i don't. Just because i know how much insulin it really takes to get all that sugar out of the blood, it's frightening. Apart from the hassle of injecting myself "just for the sake" of having a chilled cola, people automatically assume that just because they don't have diabetes and have to go through the hassle of injecting insulin for every piece of food or candy they shove in their mouths, it's somehow "ok" to them.
> 
> ...





  Let me clue you into something, you body become resistant to the synthetic insulines overtime, they become less effective. They also have some serious side effects like kideny damage, lack of blood pressure control etc. So you best bet is to minimize your insuline use as much as possiable. BTW get your iron levels check, High iron levels and iron loading can cuase type1 like diabetes symptoms in people who should not be diabetic. 

  My wife has been living with this disease for 25years, I know way more about, its cuases and its research then I would have ever cared to.


----------



## The_Ish (Jun 28, 2011)

Steevo said:


> Wow, you are so wrong. The average sedentary male in this day and age burns 1200-1700 calories.
> 
> 
> Eating nothing but fiberous veggies and drinking water and taking vitamins will allow a overweight person to live and force their fat ass to burn the fat for the store energy that it has. A pound of fat has 4,000 calories. 20 Pounds overweight means you have enough fat to live on for forty days. As long as you maintain a very marginal carbohydrate intake and some protein you can live, well.


I think we have a different view of what average as well as sedentary means.
Also, carbs are not needed to survive, so right back at ya 
edit/ No you did not say it was "needed to survive" but it's my interpretation of what you wrote. If you meant basal metabolic rate, i stand corrected. I meant the average person's day as a whole. I didn't want to complicate things.
I couldn't count on that people on this kind of forum would know much on the subject, but you clearly proved me wrong.


Thatguy said:


> Let me clue you into something, you body become resistant to the synthetic insulines overtime, they become less effective. They also have some serious side effects like kideny damage, lack of blood pressure control etc. So you best bet is to minimize your insuline use as much as possiable. BTW get your iron levels check, High iron levels and iron loading can cuase type1 like diabetes symptoms in people who should not be diabetic.
> 
> My wife has been living with this disease for 25years, I know way more about, its cuases and its research then I would have ever cared to.


I'm sorry to hear that. About your wife i mean. Yes, but you can counteract the resistance with exercise. And i love exercise. Also, I've only had it for let's see.. 4 years in November. I see a lot of "diabetes cure" related papers, but when you read them it usually is in rats, or very experimental. But I'm a young guy, so I'm holding my thumbs for a cure. But I'm also a realist, i mean, they've been saying a cure is "five years away" since the 70's. But i think when it does come, i believe type 1 will be treated very quickly here. If I'm not mistaken, Sweden are among the worst places statistically. And since insulin and everything that goes with it is "free" (paid by tax payers) here, it would be a great economic relif for everyone, that is to say, use that tax money for other things.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 28, 2011)

I think it's worth noting that type I and II don't have much in common.  Type I is due to an inability to produce insulin.  Beta cells (???) that make it are killed off by the immune system iirc.

Type II is more properly called metabolic syndrome.  T2's usually still make at least some insulin but their cells are resistant to it and therefore they require more in order to pull glucose out of the blood.

Also, Type 2's often don't require anything more than oral medication and maybe some sort of basal insulin (basically, a slow-release form of the drug).

This study was only relevant to Type 2.


----------



## f22a4bandit (Jun 28, 2011)

Staying with a whole foods diet will solve a lot more health related problems than just Type II Diabetes. Think of all of the processed food you eat a day, and all of the related problems that come with that type of food: high cholesterol, high blood pressure, obesity, heart related issues, etc. A lot of the diseases we're seeing today are definitely self-inflicted, and easily solved by simply fixing your diet and staying even moderately active. It's definitely not easy (I'm slowly transitioning, and slip every now and again) but the reward is worth the cost in my opinion.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 28, 2011)

The_Ish said:


> I think we have a different view of what average as well as sedentary means.
> Also, carbs are not needed to survive, so right back at ya
> edit/ No you did not say it was "needed to survive" but it's my interpretation of what you wrote. If you meant basal metabolic rate, i stand corrected. I meant the average person's day as a whole. I didn't want to complicate things.
> I couldn't count on that people on this kind of forum would know much on the subject, but you clearly proved me wrong.



Carbs are not NEEDED, but as a man who has gotten ripped a few times I can definitely say a few complex carbs will go a long way to feeling good.

Basal metabolic rate for people is a horrible measure of anything. We are living in a lazy age, our ancestors used to run/walk miles a day. It has been proven that people live longer and healthier with a lower caloric intake, and the 2000 a day was set years ago, for the population as a average. So does a office worker need the intake that a construction worker does? I used to consume 4-16 thousand calories per day when working construction and working out. Now I eat 1500-2500 and I need to lose weight. I could eat only 1000 per day for weeks on end and work out and be healthy. Protein has a significantly different effect than a bowl of ice cream also. So the type of calories, and the work being done with those calories is also significant.


----------



## The_Ish (Jun 29, 2011)

Steevo said:


> I used to consume 4-16 thousand calories per day when working construction and working out. Now I eat 1500-2500 and I need to lose weight.



Yeah.. I wonder why you need to loose weight..  
Dude seriously, WSM competitors eat that much.. If you cut those 16k in half.. Maybe.
And what's this talk about BMR not being accurate? Did our organs all of a sudden stop using as much energy as they used to?



Steevo said:


> Protein has a significantly different effect than a bowl of ice cream also


 This is the first factual statement I've seen so far. And it's not really beyond the realm of common sense


----------



## va4leo (Jun 29, 2011)

You know what is hillarious? watching people in a tech forum argue biology, especially when there is a clear lack of expertise! xD


----------



## copenhagen69 (Jun 29, 2011)

so did this cure the diabetes from them forever? or just while they were on the crazy diet?


----------



## The_Ish (Jun 29, 2011)

For it to be cured, the dead beta cells would have to somehow magically grow back, which isn't gonna happen by simply eating less. Eating less requires less insulin, which is good if you've got a deficiency. Not sure why they would specify calories though. I haven't read the article, but 600 calories of sugar sure wouldn't help with anything.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 29, 2011)

I think the main purpose of this 600 calories diet is just to "clean" the body and not consume this little calories through longer periods.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 29, 2011)

RejZoR said:


> I think the main purpose of this 600 calories diet is just to "clean" the body and not consume this little calories through longer periods.



Right.  I think the key to the article is the part where they talk about the fat content of the pancreas dropping from 8% to 6% iirc.


----------



## The_Ish (Jun 29, 2011)

RejZoR said:


> I think the main purpose of this 600 calories diet is just to "clean" the body and not consume this little calories through longer periods.


"Clean"? Sounds like "toning" your muscles. 
If you want to "clean" your system you can just shove a water tube up your bum and flush it all out.. Hey look i just cured..


----------



## twilyth (Jun 29, 2011)

The_Ish said:


> "Clean"? Sounds like "toning" your muscles.
> If you want to "clean" your system you can just shove a water tube up your bum and flush it all out.. Hey look i just cured..



Guess you didn't read my reply to that - either that or you weren't willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt by thinking it might be a legit observation.


----------



## The_Ish (Jun 29, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Right. I think the key to the article is the part where they talk about the fat content of the pancreas dropping from 8% to 6% iirc.





twilyth said:


> Guess you didn't read my reply to that - either that or you weren't willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt by thinking it might be a legit observation.



I'm not a MD and "fat content in of the pancreas" doesn't mean anything to me.
It also says it "may" and since I'm not an MD, I will not go around and assume anything.
Like i mentioned before, people have been talking cures for close to 40 years.
Unless someone comes forwards and shows us "this is how it is, this is how you can reproduce the results" I'm really not that interested. 

"Seeing a correlation" "We think" etc, means nothing to me. It very well could be legit, but history has taught me to read between the lines. Obviously if it's true - great. But I'm not the kind of guy who assumes things, I want the facts.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 29, 2011)

The_Ish said:


> I'm not a MD and "fat content in of the pancreas" doesn't mean anything to me.
> It also says it "may" and since I'm not an MD, I will not go around and assume anything.
> Like i mentioned before, people have been talking cures for close to 40 years.
> Unless someone comes forwards and shows us "this is how it is, this is how you can reproduce the results" I'm really not that interested.
> ...



No one was stating what the mechanism was with any certainty - not even the article, so I have no idea what you're bitching about.  My point was that you jumped all over someone for a piece of valid speculation.  That would be "valid" in the sense of being broadly supported by the article.  I don't know what you're talking about, but it certainly isn't this.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 29, 2011)

The_Ish said:


> "Clean"? Sounds like "toning" your muscles.
> If you want to "clean" your system you can just shove a water tube up your bum and flush it all out.. Hey look i just cured..



Cleaning your body means that you basically consume more than you intake into your body.
This usually means that body starts to consume reserves stored in various organs, including sugar and fat. Decreasing these two usually helps body to operate better and thus "clean" your body in general. It's not like taking a shower or anythign like that.
It's a regular Joe's expression for more technical chemical and physical processes going on in our bodies.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 29, 2011)

twilyth said:


> I think it's worth noting that type I and II don't have much in common.  Type I is due to an inability to produce insulin.  Beta cells (???) that make it are killed off by the immune system iirc.
> 
> Type II is more properly called metabolic syndrome.  *T2's usually still make at least some insulin but their cells are resistant to it* and therefore they require more in order to pull glucose out of the blood.
> 
> ...



Kind of right...

the receptors that respond to insulin are lost or do not function properly. I guess that using this extreme diet causes the body to produce more of these receptors, even if they aren't function at 100% capacity 30% is better than 10%. Thus the effects are seen as each cell have many more insulin receptors that the can be acted on.

EDIT: Add a quick wiki for those that want to know more


----------



## twilyth (Jun 29, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> Kind of right...
> 
> the receptors that respond to insulin are lost or do not function properly. I guess that using this extreme diet causes the body to produce more of these receptors, even if they aren't function at 100% capacity 30% is better than 10%. Thus the effects are seen as each cell have many more insulin receptors that the can be acted on.


Thanks.  I always forget that the number of receptors a cell expresses for a particular ligand (substrate???) can vary by significant percentages over a period of weeks or months - if you have the right conditions.

In fact I was talking with my pharmacist about this just a couple weeks ago.  This is sort of off topic, but we also talked about the next wave in drug discovery - or what could be the next anyway - allosteric drugs.  Things that don't bind to the active site of a receptor but to part of the complex that makes up a receptor or a part of the membrane that affects the receptor's activity.  Since they leave the active site open, they can tune the sensitivity up or down as opposed to simply turning receptors on or off - or something like that.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 29, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Thanks.  I always forget that the number of receptors a cell expresses for a particular ligand (substrate???) can vary by significant percentages over a period of weeks or months - if you have the right conditions.
> 
> In fact I was talking with my pharmacist about this just a couple weeks ago.  This is sort of off topic, but we also talked about the next wave in drug discovery - or what could be the next anyway - allosteric drugs.  Things that don't bind to the active site of a receptor but to part of the complex that makes up a receptor or a part of the membrane that affects the receptor's activity.  Since they leave the active site open, they can tune the sensitivity up or down as opposed to simply turning receptors on or off - or something like that.



Yea, as opposed to an agonist (activating the receptor) or an antagonist (switches it off). Allosterics bind to a site that isn't the active site (where the ligand sits) and so you don't get that on/off effect. You get a higher affinity effect. Also you can make these bind irreversibly so you will always have that higher affinity for the receptors lifetime instead of just it being broken down over a few hours.

Also added a wiki link about receptors in previous post if you want to know more.


----------



## kenkickr (Jun 29, 2011)

I know I felt like crap, headaches and weak most of the time, when I had gallstones/pacreatitis and was limited to 10 grams of fat per day.  I could only imagine what these people felt like.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 29, 2011)

Key is these people were "probably" given a strict diet containing all the necessary fats/amino acids. Just without the calories.

I guess kinda like Weight Watchers NASA food.


----------



## The_Ish (Jun 29, 2011)

twilyth said:


> No one was stating what the mechanism was with any certainty - not even the article, so I have no idea what you're bitching about.  My point was that you jumped all over someone for a piece of valid speculation.  That would be "valid" in the sense of being broadly supported by the article.  I don't know what you're talking about, but it certainly isn't this.



Hold your horses mister. Bitching? I haven't even read the article for the record.
Either you are over sensitive, or I'm just cold hearted. What did I write to make you so upset?

I'm not buying into these kind of articles since they "have found links" and "see a correlation" and all those standard statements.. But until they can come with clear evidence, it's not that interesting. That's like saying god is real even though there is no evidence for one -- physical or otherwise.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 29, 2011)

The_Ish said:


> Hold your horses mister. Bitching? I haven't even read the article for the record.
> Either you are over sensitive, or I'm just cold hearted. What did I write to make you so upset?
> 
> I'm not buying into these kind of articles since they "have found links" and "see a correlation" and all those standard statements.. But until they can come with clear evidence, it's not that interesting. That's like saying god is real even though there is no evidence for one -- physical or otherwise.


I didn't think I was upset but whatever.  You weren't responding to anything I had said.  I was pointing that out.

What you do or don't find interesting is irrelevant and what might or might not be considered interesting was never the discussion.  The evidence in the article is quite dramatic, but since you haven't read it, I can understand why you are completely nonplussed.


----------



## The_Ish (Jun 29, 2011)

My bad then, people have a habit to misinterpret me. Guess it was me this time 
The reason i didn't read it was because 9/10 these articles are to inconclusive for me to personally find them interesting. I wasn't necessarily giving a response or anything, just my thoughts.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 30, 2011)

The_Ish said:


> Yeah.. I wonder why you need to loose weight..
> Dude seriously, WSM competitors eat that much.. If you cut those 16k in half.. Maybe.
> And what's this talk about BMR not being accurate? Did our organs all of a sudden stop using as much energy as they used to?
> 
> This is the first factual statement I've seen so far. And it's not really beyond the realm of common sense









This for me is fat, I need to lose 20Lbs before we go somewhere tropical this winter.



225Lbs 5' 10.7" The smallest I ever was when ripped was 180Lbs and had no fat and wore size 29. I was curling hundreds of pounds. I still can but no as many reps. I have gotten soft. But that is why I'm cutting back carbs and eating more salads and back on the whey and working out harder. I can burn 1000+ calories per workout session besides what I burn in a day.


BTW, I have done alot of research on bio-availability of different nutrients, best practices in gaining mass and keeping healthy as I have a family history of gout, and I have already had a few cases due to high protein intake. I'm not the average gym fag who goes once a week and buys whatever the new fad is in dieting. I have spent time understanding metabolic pathways and the effects of certain intake combinations on the human body.

If you truly have Diabetus, try a high protein low carb diet with a focus on 5-7 daily servings of complex carbs totaling no more than 15% of your total caloric intake. Drink a caffeinated beverage at least 45 minutes before eating your carbs.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 30, 2011)

Lookin' good Steevo.  A few extra pounds make you look healthy.  But i understand wanting to get a little chiseled if not all-out ripped.


----------



## erek (Jun 30, 2011)

that's one great camera there, steevo!


----------



## The_Ish (Jun 30, 2011)

What do you mean "if you truly have", I wish i didn't.


----------

