Featured Post from Aston University

Type 2 diabetes: more than one type of diet can help people achieve remission

Aug 23, 2021

5 min

Dr Duane Mellor

Until recently, type 2 diabetes has mainly been managed by controlling risk factors – such as high blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar (glucose) levels – usually by prescribing drugs. But this approach doesn’t address the underlying causes of type 2 diabetes – such as problems with the hormone insulin no longer effectively controlling blood sugar. While taking drugs can help to manage blood sugar levels, it won’t help unpick the biological causes behind type 2 diabetes.



A growing body of research shows that losing weight, either through surgery or dieting, can help address some of the underlying causes of type 2 diabetes. It does this by helping the body control blood sugar levels. This is significant as controlling blood sugar by improving how insulin is made and works is key to bringing type 2 diabetes into remission.


Most of this body of research so far has looked at using meal-replacement shakes to help people with type 2 diabetes, which is why this approach may be prescribed by a doctor. But, more recently, researchers have begun investigating other diets – such as low-carbohydrate diets – in achieving remission. Although research in this area is still emerging, study results have so far shown a low-carbohydrate diet to be promising.


To better understand which diets are best at helping people achieve type 2 diabetes remission, our recent review looked at over 90 papers describing the effects of various diets on type 2 diabetes. We found that although the better quality research tended to focus on meal-replacement shakes used in clinical trials, other approaches (such as low-carbohydrate diets) were also shown to work well.


Join our readers who subscribe to free evidence-based news

Our review found that meal-replacement diets helped around one in three people successfully achieve remission, while low carbohydrate diets were able to help around one in five people achieve remission. People who lost weight using both of these diets were able to stay in remission for up to two years if they maintained their weight loss.


Low calorie and Mediterranean diets were also able to help people achieve remission – but at much lower rates. Only around 5% of people on low-calorie diets stayed in remission after one year, while only 15% of people on a Mediterranean diet stayed in remission after a year.


Defining remission

One of the big challenges we faced when writing our review was defining what “remission” is. Knowing how to define it was important so we could understand which diets worked best in helping people achieve remission.

The reason this was difficult is because the definition varies between different expert groups and research studies. Most define remission as a reduction of blood sugar levels below the range to diagnose diabetes – but some definitions state that this needs to be done without the use of drugs, while others do not. Other definitions say weight (especially fat around the midsection) must be lost to achieve remission.


Another challenge we faced when defining remission was that some reports suggest low-carbohydrate diets can normalise blood sugar levels even without weight loss. This happens because when we eat carbohydrates, they’re broken down into sugars which cause our blood sugar levels to rise. A low-carbohydrate diet means less blood sugar appears in the bloodstream, leading to improved blood sugar control.


For that reason, we initially defined remission using the definition each study used. Then, we compared the numbers of people whose blood sugar levels normalised without drugs for at least six months – which most consider to be true remission.


Mitigation v remission

While low-carbohydrate diets help people achieve remission, there’s concern that blood sugar levels could potentially rise again as soon as more carbohydrates are eaten. This is why we suggest in our review that rather than call this remission, it should perhaps be called “mitigation of diabetes”, as type 2 diabetes is still present – but the negative effects are being well managed. We think that remission can only be achieved if fat is lost from around the organs. This allows insulin to be made and used effectively again.


But because carbohydrates are also a major energy source in our diet, eating less of these often results in consuming fewer calories – which typically results in weight loss. So if someone is able to maintain a low-carbohydrate diet long term, they will not only reduce blood sugar levels and risk of complications for their diabetes, but may also achieve remission.


Regardless, the evidence that we looked at in our review made clear that there are many ways a person can significantly improve their blood sugar levels through diet – and that this can lead to remission in many cases. The key thing we found with each type of diet is that at least 10-15kg of body weight needed to be lost to achieve remission.


However, although weight loss seems to be the best predictor of success, it assumes fat loss from the pancreas and liver. It will be important for future studies to compare how these diets work for different ethnic groups, as type 2 diabetes can happen at lower body weights in different ethnic groups, who may have less weight to lose.


Not everyone may be able to achieve remission, but people who are younger (less than 50), male, have had type 2 diabetes for less than six years and lose more weight are more likely to be successful. This could be because these people are able to reverse the causes of their diabetes, recovering more of the pancreas’s ability to make insulin and the liver’s ability to use it. But this doesn’t mean others won’t be successful if they improve their diet and lifestyle, and lose weight.


Whether or not a person achieves remission, reducing blood sugar levels is important in managing the negative effects of type 2 diabetes and reducing risk of complications. But when it comes to choosing a diet, the most important thing is to pick one that suits you – one that you’re likely to stick to long term.



Connect with:
Dr Duane Mellor

Dr Duane Mellor

Visiting Academic

Dr Mellor is an award-winning dietitian, science communicator, medical educator and researcher.

Food ScienceDieteticsDiabetesObesityNutrition
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease featured image

3 min

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease

An international clinical trial involving Aston University researchers has challenged long held assumptions about how brittle bone disease is treated in adults, after finding that substantially increasing bone density did not reduce the risk of fractures. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), examined whether a two stage treatment using the bone building drug teriparatide followed by the bone preserving drug zoledronic acid could reduce fractures in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta, often referred to as brittle bone disease, a rare genetic condition that causes bones to break easily throughout life. Researchers followed 349 adults treated at 27 specialist centres across the UK and Europe. While the treatment led to clear increases in bone density in the spine and hip, fracture rates were no lower than among patients receiving standard care, suggesting that bone quality may matter more than bone density alone in preventing fractures in people with the condition. The findings underline a key distinction between brittle bone disease and more common bone conditions such as osteoporosis, where increasing bone density is known to reduce fracture risk. In osteogenesis imperfecta, the study suggests that bones can become denser without becoming less likely to break, indicating that the underlying quality and structure of bone tissue may play a greater role in fracture risk than density alone. Dr Zaki Hassan Smith, an endocrinologist at Aston Medical School who contributed to the research, said: “This study shows that in osteogenesis imperfecta, simply increasing bone density doesn’t necessarily translate into fewer fractures. That’s important, because it tells us that the disease is more complex than what we see on a scan. The findings help shift the focus towards understanding bone quality and how bones behave in real life, which is essential if we are to develop more effective treatments that genuinely reduce harm for patients.” Osteogenesis imperfecta is a genetic condition that affects collagen, leaving bones fragile and prone to fracture throughout life. There is currently no licensed treatment specifically approved to prevent fractures in adults with the condition, and patients often experience repeated fractures, chronic pain and long term disability. The trial tested a sequential treatment strategy commonly used in osteoporosis, where a bone building drug is followed by a treatment designed to preserve gains in bone strength. Although this approach successfully increased bone density in people with osteogenesis imperfecta, it did not reduce fracture rates, suggesting that treatment strategies effective in osteoporosis may not directly translate to rare bone diseases. Researchers did observe improvements in some quality of life measures among participants receiving the treatment, including reduced pain interference and improved mobility. However, fracture prevention remained unchanged, reinforcing the need for new approaches that target the fundamental properties of bone in osteogenesis imperfecta rather than density alone. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Aston University contributed clinical and academic expertise through Aston Medical School as part of the large international collaboration, which involved specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh, with Aston University contributing clinical and academic expertise as part of a wider international collaboration involving multiple specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Researchers say the findings provide important guidance for future research, helping to steer efforts towards treatments that focus on bone quality, strength and resilience in everyday life. They also highlight the value of large scale clinical trials in rare diseases, where learning what does not reduce harm is an essential step towards better care. The paper, Teriparatide Plus Zoledronic Acid for Osteogenesis Imperfecta, is published in JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.6889

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink featured image

3 min

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink

After five weeks of fieldwork across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Aston University researcher Dr Komal Raj Aryal is calling for a more locally grounded approach to resilience and post-disaster recovery in one of the world’s most hazard-prone regions. What happens after the headlines fade from a disaster? That question sits at the heart of new field research led by Dr Komal Raj Aryal, Lecturer in Crisis and Disaster Management at Aston Business School. After returning from a five-week research visit across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Dr Aryal says the evidence points to a troubling reality: many communities remain highly vulnerable long after major recovery programmes are supposed to have helped them rebuild. The trip brought together field visits, stakeholder consultations and community observations linked to ongoing UKRI, NERC and ISPF-supported research on earthquake risk, disaster governance, resilience and post-disaster recovery in the Himalayan region. The aim was not only to understand current conditions, but to ask why repeated losses continue despite years of international development assistance, scientific research and investment. Across the region, the research found that resilience is being undermined by a combination of persistent governance challenges, fragmented institutions, weak local preparedness systems, livelihood insecurity and mounting environmental pressures. In other words, recovery is not simply about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about whether communities are genuinely better equipped to cope with the next shock. This challenge is especially striking in places still living with the legacy of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, where long-term vulnerabilities remain visible despite the scale of international support directed towards recovery and reconstruction. Reflecting on his findings, Dr Aryal said: “One of the most striking observations from the field is that many communities affected by the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes continue to face similar vulnerabilities today, despite significant international support allocated for recovery and reconstruction. This raises important questions about how disaster recovery is planned, implemented, and sustained over time.” The fieldwork also highlighted the growing complexity of future disaster risks in the Himalayas. Large-scale earthquakes do not exist in isolation; they interact with environmental degradation, cascading hazards, climate-related stresses and rapid urbanisation in fragile mountain settings. He added: “The Himalayan region is entering a period of growing uncertainty where environmental change, socio-economic inequality, weak governance systems, and seismic risks are becoming increasingly interconnected. There is an urgent need to rethink conventional development approaches and invest more seriously in locally grounded, community-centred resilience strategies.” For Aston University, this work reflects a broader commitment to international research on disaster risk reduction, resilience governance and humanitarian response across South Asia. Aston researchers are working with government agencies, local authorities, universities, emergency responders and humanitarian organisations to strengthen evidence-based approaches to preparedness and recovery. The findings feed into wider international debates about sustainable development, climate resilience, risk communication and the future of disaster governance in vulnerable mountain regions. They also underline the importance of moving beyond short-term recovery models towards approaches that are participatory, practical and rooted in local knowledge. Dr Aryal’s research emphasises the value of integrating community knowledge, participatory governance, youth engagement and long-term livelihood security into resilience planning. As future collaborations and policy discussions develop, these themes are likely to be central to how the region prepares for the risks ahead. The recent fieldwork is expected to inform future international research partnerships, policy dialogue and resilience-focused initiatives between the UK and South Asian partners.

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit featured image

2 min

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit

Greenland episode exposed UK’s lack of effective response to economic coercion from allies Research shows tariff retaliation would have cost the average UK household up to £324 per year Economists say China visit is “portfolio risk management” – diversification reduces vulnerability. The Prime Minister’s visit to China – the first by a British PM since 2018 – is an opportunity to reduce the UK’s vulnerability to economic coercion, according to new research from Aston University. A policy paper from Aston Business School’s Centre for Business Prosperity analyses the January 2026 Greenland tariff episode, when President Trump threatened and then withdrew tariffs on eight European countries. The researchers found that the UK had no good options: retaliation would have made Britain worse off, while absorbing the tariffs left Europe without credible deterrence. Director of the centre for business prosperity, Professor Jun Du, said: “The Greenland episode was a wake-up call. When your principal security ally threatens economic coercion, the old assumptions about who is safe and who is dangerous no longer hold. “The PM’s China visit should be framed as portfolio risk management – building diversified trading relationships that reduce the UK’s exposure to any single partner. Just as investors don’t put all their money in one stock, countries shouldn’t put all their trade into one basket. A UK with multiple strong partnerships is harder to pressure, whether the pressure comes from Washington or Beijing.” The research found that coordinated UK–EU tariff retaliation would have cost British households up to £324 per year – the worst outcome modelled. But the authors argue that Europe has untapped leverage elsewhere: the US runs a €148 billion annual services surplus with the EU, and mutual investment exceeds €5.3 trillion. Associate professor of economics and co-author, Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, said: “Tariff retaliation fails because it hurts consumers and distorts the economy – the retaliator suffers similarly to the target. But Europe has cards it isn’t playing. Services, investment screening, and regulatory access are pressure points where Europe can respond effectively.” UK exports to China fell by 10.4% in the year to Q2 2025, with goods exports down 23.1% – the sharpest decline among major trading partners. The researchers argue that this closes off the UK’s largest alternative market at precisely the moment US reliability is in question. The paper identifies three priorities for UK policy: Recognise the permanent incentives behind US tariffs. US tariff revenue hit $264 billion in 2025. Trade negotiations alone cannot resolve revenue-driven policy. Build UK–EU coordination on non-tariff instruments. Services, investment, procurement, and regulation offer leverage that tariffs do not. Treat China engagement as portfolio risk management. Concentration in any single market creates vulnerability. Diversification is not about picking sides – it’s about resilience. Professor Du added: “The question for the Prime Minister is whether to use this breathing space to build resilience – or wait for the next Greenland.” To read the policy paper in full, click on this link:

View all posts
Powered by