Has anyone tried or planning to try the blood sugar diet?

Hi Rosie, I am doing this at the moment (with some leeway for weekends!). Have you started yet? I am 60 yrs and aim to lose about another 20kg.

I'm not finding it too bad - I was doing 5:2 for a while so 800 calls is better than 500! I generally eat most of my calories for dinner, with a light lunch or an apple earlier in the day. Living in France my main issues are bread, wine and cheese...

I'm almost afraid to ask.... What's the "Blood Sugar Diet"?

I have read the book and the science behind it does seem well evidenced. The diet is intended for 8 weeks max to turn around pre-diabetics or recent diabetics and after the period of restricted calories you should then go on to the 5:2 diet plan.

ianblackburn wrote: »

CasperNaegle wrote: »

I would honestly be surprised if it was real science vs. "Dr. Oz science". That low of calories is not good for you and will kill your metabolism. All you have to do is get your body in a 20% calorie deficit and eat balanced, you will lose weight. I hope you stay healthy and find success.

I would recommend reading the book, and look at the scientific evidence. For example the widely quoted "starvation mode" has more scientific evidence against it than for (for example: "Resting energy expenditure in short-term starvation is increased as a result of an increase in serum norepinephrine. C Zauner et al, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2000." http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1511.full)

There is so much information that gets quoted with no scientific backing that I now will not accept anything without sound scientific evidence behind it. This book is science led and worth a read.

Without trying to be contentions statements like "All you have to do is get your body in a 20% calorie deficit and eat balanced, you will lose weight" are not that helpful and much more in the "Dr. Oz science" bracket than this book is!

Cheers

Ian

The reason "starvation mode" was labeled as a myth is because people incorrectly invoked it for low or moderate caloric restrictions, or misunderstood it. You may have heard things like "the reason I'm not losing weight is because my metabolism slows down", or "I should actually eat more to lose weight" (not kidding about that one). Folks who weren't properly tracking calories, had snacks on the side, gave up, overestimated TDEE or any of the myriad problems were blaming it on "starvation mode". So a backlash occurred and it was taken out back and shot as a misrepresentation of the results of the Minnesota experiment.

Unfortunately such counter-reactions can occlude underlying truths and become too severe, so situations where it actually does apply are now also washed away in the "myth" backlash.

Severe caloric restriction leads to a decline in resting metabolic rate beyond what can be expected to be the result of only fat and lean tissue loss. Even worse, this persists beyond weight loss and for an extended time when caloric restriction is reduced again, leading to a rebound effect and weight gain when someone then starts eating what should be suitable for their new body composition. You want the science? Here you go:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6694559
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.long
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3387402/

The ketogenic diet was originally devised as a treatment for epilepsy. This "blood sugar diet" is apparently a tool for helping pre-diabetics and original diabetics. People should stop using such diets which may have serious side-effects when their conditions do not match what those diets were created for. They should stop crash diets when long-term success depends on proper behavioral adjustments and these very-low-calorie approaches even set them up for future failure to maintain their new weight.

You're saying maintaining a 20% deficit and eating balanced is more "Dr. Oz science" than letting people do some diet that's not even intended for them? Are you for real? When eating balanced will avoid problems that may occur with very low carb or other bizarre diets that radically cut out specific nutrients? When a small or moderate deficit maintained over time is easier to adhere to, builds sustainable habits and has shown time and time again to work?

People, don't do fad diets for simple weight loss if you don't have a serious condition. If they were so great they would be the final answer to weight loss. The reason people are so excited about them is because they do work at first to the point that caloric restriction is maintained, for some they work really well because they align with their preferences and some physical aspects, and there's a strong survivorship bias.

EDIT: oh, and by the way, the study you linked is irrelevant to the discussion because it observes effects on the short term (84 hours, to be specific) and this diet is to be maintained for 8 weeks. For someone who demands scientific backing you are engaging in scientific misconduct by trying to debunk starvation response using a study that has a radically different conditions from the subject at hand.

Just cut out bread, potatoes, pasta and anything made with flour such as cakes, pastry etc. That's all you need to do to lower blood sugar levels. I've done it and amazed my doctor with the results. Absolutely no need to cut calories to such a low level.