Thank you for sharing your ways to monitor foods, BG level, then select right kind of food. I probably start to test my BG level while reducing carb consumption, and see how it goes.

As for reverse diabetes, seems to me there is a lack of a scientific definition now. To me, reverse diabetes (RD) means that for T2:
1. stop progressive increase of medication while time goes by;
2. reduce medication, or even better, totally off medication;

A great article from WebMD,
Can You Reverse Type 2 Diabetes? By Sonya Collins
WebMD Feature Reviewed by Michael Dansinger, MD

Here is the highlights:
=====================
In one study, people with type 2 diabetes exercised for 175 minutes a week, limited their calories to 1,200 to 1,800 per day, and got weekly counseling and education on these lifestyle changes.

Within a year, about 10% got off their diabetes medications or improved to the point where their blood sugar level was no longer in the diabetes range, and was instead classified as prediabetes.

Results were best for those who lost the most weight or who started the program with less severe or newly diagnosed diabetes. Fifteen percent to 20% of these people were able to stop taking their diabetes medications.
=================================================
see
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/type-...type-2-diabetes

Thank you all for very helpful response, I am overwhelmed and will read and digest. This is my first post, did not anticipate for so many replies in such a short time, very very helpful to learn from your experiences.

Thanks you all so much

Thanks for the link, will take a look. All these are new, probably I will start from
LC, then LCHF, if neccessay then add IF.

Cure is definitely stronger than Reverse. I assume both are the frontiers of the latest advances for diabetes. But somehow I felt not many main stream academic publications have been published on these topics, not sure why.

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19419563

Peter at Hyperlipid has a blog post here , it's where I got this;



The carbohydrate restriction here is moderate--but this shows that it doesn't take much, if any, weight loss to see good results.

Sadly, it is far from a "new frontier " but was the standard of treatment for diabetes until the low-fat fad limited research funding. Why LC has not been funded more (the pharmas that sell diabetes medications certainly won't fund diet research ) is bound up in the whole sad sugar/fat story since the 1960s. Good Calories, Bad Calories and The Big Fat Surprise cover those.

The Introduction from the Nutrition article answers why the lack of publication. DietDoctor has a copy of the food list of the standard diabetes diet used in the 1920s.



Be aware that WebMD is supported by pharmaceutical industry advertising, related health services and has a relationship with the FDA. WebMD and ADA will follow the FDA "my plate" guidelines. We know how well that has worked for the health of the US since introduced in 1980. While nothing wrong in that article, it would also not suggest that the standard, calorie restricted diet used to "reverse" might be even more effective if further carb restricted. There are numerous "stories" in the right side bar under a tiny advertisement box, but you will also find their editorial stories about how to manage blood sugar give a laundry list of drugs...failing to mention the first step should be to remove carbohydrates.

My definition of "reverse" is for a doctor to remove the diagnosis from a medical record; you would have to be off all diabetes medications and have normal FBGs and Hba1c.

The info we all piled on you is the tip of the iceberg Just dig into Kelly Pounds LowCarbRN website ... She is also link crazy. Even the tab titled "Everything Else" is loaded with great articles, videos, etc. to help you decide on a carbohydrate restriction that will work for you.

Dr. William Davis is another doctor who often writes about Reversing Diabetes. His guidelines might be summarized, no grains ever and top limit of 15g carbs for each meal. His no change rules for BG are useful: http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2015/...no-change-rule/

I think words like reverse and cure are fraught with underlying preconceptions. I always liked the term "treat" or "treatment" when it comes to an ongoing process to manage a disease.

It isn't a cure like most people think of cures, something that happens and then is over. It is a lifelong process. The disease will come back if you stop treating it. Or you could say it is dormant. Or you could equate it with pulling a log off the fire. The fire goes out most of the time but if you put the log back into the fire, it'll come back.

Thanks for your comments, looks the water is very deep:-(

I believe that NIH should speak for the truth and it should not represent interests group, right? I search the NIH's NIDDK's web site for the term:
"reverse diabetes", almost zero result except one page on
Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), this is the statement:
================================================
Hope through Research
The DPP contributed to a better understanding of how diabetes develops in people at risk and how they can prevent or delay the development of diabetes by making behavioral changes leading to weight loss. These findings are reflected in recommendations from the American Diabetes Association for the prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes, which stress the importance of lifestyle changes and weight loss. The DPP's impact continues as new research, building on the study's results, seeks the most effective ways to prevent, delay, or even reverse diabetes.
================================================

So seems to me, at least, NIH has not agreed on the claims that diabetes can be reversed. That's why I am very confused on if LC diet can reverse diabetes, although I hope it can happen one day.

See the web site at
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/about-nidd...es/default.aspx

Thanks for your points

Well, since the DPP includes a 1/4 of the plate as starch and grain (potato, oatmeal, etc), skim milk and fruit (high in sugar) no wonder they don't think diabetes can be reversed. I've dug down into that program before to look at presentations, menus, etc. because the YMCA's national Diabetes Prevention program uses the CDC program, which is based on the NIH research. http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/prevention/index.html
I've had a number of "discussions" with the manager of our regions YMCA Diabetes Program about why it has such modest results, now I email her only occasionally when there is something new that is good to share.

and speaking of that...here is a new 12 minute interview with Dr. Hallberg!
http://www.dietdoctor.com/member/interviews/hallberg
Her comment at the beginning is (paraphrasing here)

"I am very big on not using the word "cure" because diabetes can come back, the term I prefer is RESOLVED. It does not have to be a chronic disease because we can RESOLVE the problem by changing the nutrition"

She is optimistic that diabetes treatment will be changed in the future by this "grassroots" movement. Last Sept (and many times since) people who manage their blood sugar with Low Carb will post on the ADA Facebook page...by the thousands.

Here is a sample: http://www.dietdoctor.com/ada-asks-...rkable-feedback

I was totally ignorant about diabetes all the way up to my being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes two years ago. When I did get diagnosed with diabetes I suddenly became interested in learning about it. When I started reading articles about diabetes, all I can say is that it certainly explained a lot about what I'd been experiencing in the months prior to the diagnosis. I found a list of "10 signs that you might have diabetes" and I'd experienced them all.

Most of those symptoms were resolved within a few months of going low carb. I'm talking about unusual thirst, frequent urination, blurry vision, skin issues, nerve pain in my feet, liver inflammation, and high fasting blood sugar. It did, however, take nearly a year to get my BP, fasting BG and post prandial BG readings down to totally normal levels. One year after my diagnosis my A1C was 5.1. I just finished my second year of this WOE and my A1C was 5.3. My doctor says that I 'cured' my diabetes. If that term is good enough for her then it is good enough for me.

Cured, controlled, resolved... the term really doesn't matter. This WOE can fix diabetes problems - provided it is done before too much permanent damage has occurred. And even for those with permanent damage, this WOE can improve symptoms, make the condition easier to manage and reduce the need for meds. This WOE is the answer to diabetes.

I don't even see diabetes as a disease, really. If you ingest something that makes you sick to the point of killing you isn't that a poisoning? We eat trace amounts poisons everyday. Provided the level ingested is sufficiently small - within our body's tolerance for it -- we don't get sick from it. Arsenic, lead, sugar... all become poisonous if we eat more than our body can tolerate. Over consumption of sugar is a slow acting poison, but a poison none the less IMO. If your everyday diet involves eating more than your body can tolerate, then you get a little sicker everyday. The collection of conditions defined as metabolic syndrome are the signs of that sickness and they occur way before diabetes does. In my view diabetes is just the tipping point where the serious damage starts to occur.

I don't want to get into a debate about my POV on diabetes. I don't want to argue about it. Thinking of sugar this way helps me stay on track. I look at a box of donuts with a totally different perspective. If I handed you a donut and told you it was laced with enough lead or arsenic to make you sick over time, but not enough to make you sick today would you eat it? Isn't that what sugar does? I know I can't stop eating sugary junk once I start. I could never eat donuts or other junky carbs within my daily tolerance for sugar. That is why I need to stay far away from them. If I return to eating too much sugar, I will get sick again.

What a brilliant post!

Jo xxx

I won't argue with you - I agree completely! The reason my screen name is Canary is because I sometimes feel like I am a canary in the coal mine. I'm not sure why I'm so sensitive but small amounts of gluten, sugar/carbs, and alcohol (which may all be related) affect me horribly. However, I don't define my self as a celiac, diabetic, or alcoholic. When I don't consume these things, all of which can be debilitating to many people in the long term, I'm fine. For whatever reason, they are acutely toxic to me. In many ways, I feel lucky that I have to avoid these substances and hopefully will avoid many of the consequences of chronic consumption.

thank you for sharing your success story, and congratulations to you

Another terrific post, Ken I need to start collecting "Pearls of wisdom from Ken" ..but wait...you are writing a book with those

Rider, just wanted to mention that I hope you are reading the Diabetes forum, especially the active Jason Fung thread . Don't dismiss the benefits of fasting because you don't need to lose weight. Recently I had only been fasting whenever the mood struck, but this week I returned to a 1-4 hour "eating window" every day and my BG has dropped every single day. Starting in high 90s, just tested FBG 76. It may work quickly for me because I have used fasting for almost 2 years and have tested very low insulin levels...but shoot, they came back down fast.

For your situation, and fasting's many other health benefits, encourage you to try it out. Eating "lowish" in carbs based on Dr Fung's simple guidelines at the same calorie level, but with a 18/6 or 20/4 Warrior type fasting schedule.

I am not diabetic. Nor, with a healthy LCHF diet, do I plan to be.

But there are many diseases that can be controlled or reversed by diet. Many, like diabetes, are metabolic diseases. If one is diagnosed as T2D because of both symptoms and lab findings, and the symptoms disappear, and the lab findings become normal, what IS that but a reversal of the disease?

The fact that limiting carbs can have such a beneficial effect on diseases from both T1 and T2D, to ADHD and schizophrenia, indicates that there IS something there that is not being given the respect, or even the curiosity to learn about, that it deserves.

The US government, while highly influenced by the demands of Big Pharma, is not yet, to the best of my knowledge, owned by them. It's laughable to think that there would be any research funded on the effects of diet on disease by Big Pharma; it's against their best interests. But we, individually and collectively, really should demand that government funded studies move forward to compare the effects of a low carb diet against the currently recommended regimes.

Big Pharma won't like it, one bit. Because we did not evolve to require drugs to function, and the "discovery" that we can function much better without their assistance, or the assistance of Big Agriculture and the food industry, will be an economic blow to them.