So considering it then?

In other news sensible diet and exercise prevents type 2 diabetes.

I'm type 2, so this was interesting to me. In fact, the Newcastle study is anything but a 'healthy' diet. 600 calories a day is a suicidal diet for any extended length of time. It's literally not enough to survive on for just about any human being. The people in the Newcastle study were being closely monitored and reported side effects which means you really couldn't carry on with a normal life while being on the diet. You're essentially rebooting part of your internal system which is never something you should do lightly.

This isn't a 'lifestyle' and you'd be utterly mental to try anything like it as a preventative measure. It's a cure for a chronic condition. It's much more appropriate to consider it the equivalent of a major operation, just without you being cut into.

I'm starting a really harsh regime next week (in fact) for other reasons. Even that is going to be about 1200 calories a day and it's going to be really hard. 600? You couldn't do it on your own. Nobody could. The only way somebody could stick to it for any length of time at all is if they're being monitored and basically their food intake is being controlled. To put it bluntly, the only way anyone could keep to it is if they were in hospital.

Jon

Or possibly being tortured.

Cobblers.
A friend did some crazy diet that dropped her intake to 600 cals a day, and with weekly checks with her Dr to make sure her body wasn't doing anything crazy, she dropped a load of weight.
I think it was the lighter life diet, but I'm not 100% certain.
Anyway - she did it, nothing but will power. If you want to, you can.

Oh FFS. None of them were cured of diabetes.

Diabetes is more than just blood sugar and insulin levels otherwise it'd very simple to manage. A 600 calorie diet is ridiculous. Sounds like they took in very little carbs so little glucose generated by glucogenesis. Didn't read the whole thing but eight weeks is too short. What happens in three months' time? A year? Five years? Will there still be microvascular complications?

This is in no way a realistic test. It's like saying you could lose weight if you eat nothing but bark for eight weeks. Yes you'll lose weigh through starving but the moment you eat "normally" you'll put the weight back on. 600 cals also flies through the face of current accepted science in that you should lose weight slowly rather than "crash dieting".

I'm tempted to read the "scientific" paper but I don't want to get wound up about it or I won't sleep tonight.

Will power and the prospect of a weekly check up with a GP where one of the things I suspect happened was that he weighed her to make sure she wasn't losing too much weight in too short a period and to monitor and record her progress.
That's how weight watchers and the like actually work. It's not the over-expensive branded foods that make people lose weight, it's the thought that every week they're going to have to go on the scales in front of people. It's peer pressure, more or less. You can even do it to yourself - just start keeping a diary of what you eat every day. No strict diets, no limitations. You'll still lose weight, assuming you have any to lose.

To be honest, I have genuine doubts whether your friend would have stuck to a 600 calorie a day diet if she didn't have a doctor looking over her shoulder.

As for the efficacy of the regime, the stated results are impressive but not universal and it isn't going to cure type 1 diabetics who are diabetics because their insulin system doesn't work and never really has done. If they're following usual scientific practice, the next step is to get a new group of subjects and attempt to replicate the findings. If they get similar results, they may have something. If not, well, it was a fluke. As I said, I'm following it with interest.

Jon