In this follow-up, I respond to the many replies to my article on gut bacteria and reversing diabetes. A clear theme emerged: people understand gut biology matters, but most prefer a reliable product rather than fermenting at home. I compare “pill thinking” with “food thinking”, explain why many commercial probiotics disappoint in practice, and describe why fermented vegetables can create obvious changes in gut activity. I also outline a broader system—gut biology, minerals, phytonutrients, fasting, and exercise—and the real-world problem of distributing living fermented food.

Colin Austin – 31 March 2017. 

---

Why I’m Writing a Group Reply

I received some really eye-opening replies to my last article on gut bacteria and reversing diabetes. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I read all the emails, and I appreciate both the encouragement and the hard questions. It is probably more effective to write one reply that addresses the common issues, rather than send out dozens of separate responses.

What struck me was how many people are genuinely interested in gut biology and how important it is for health. Ten years ago, this topic mostly lived in specialist research. Now it has moved into wider public understanding. I have been a gut enthusiast for some time, and I assumed I was in the “pseudo-freak” category. Apparently not—there are plenty of us out there.

The Big Preference: Buy, Don’t Ferment

The good news is that gut biology is now on people’s radar. The bad news (for my plans) is that very few people showed any interest in fermenting themselves. Most would prefer to buy a product—as long as quality is assured.

There also seemed to be a strong preference for probiotic pills from the local chemist. That reflects the ongoing difference between me and my wife, Xiulan. I am an engineer, so my first question is: “Does it work in practice?” I want results I can measure, even if it is only on myself. Xiulan is a doctor, so she leans toward pills that have been tested in large statistical trials.

Pills Versus Food: Why the Argument Matters

We have both trialled commercially available probiotics (drinks and pills) and could see no tangible evidence of improvement. For us, they just did not seem to work.

There are at least three possible reasons. First, if we already have the “right” biology, adding more may do nothing. Second, most commercial probiotics contain one strain, or at best a few strains, grown in a controlled way. That is not how our guts function; they are an ecosystem with a broad spectrum of organisms that interact. Third, the upper regions of the digestive tract are highly acidic, which can kill introduced organisms before they reach the lower regions where we most need them.

So from both theoretical and practical angles, commercially available probiotics can be underwhelming. That does not mean they are useless for everyone, but it does mean I cannot assume that “a pill solves it” is a reliable pathway for most people.

What Happened When I Ate Fermented Vegetables

Now compare that to eating fermented vegetables. The results, at least for me, were dramatic. Let’s not be too squeamish: I looked for direct physical signs that gut activity had changed. The frequency of bowel motions increased and the volume increased dramatically.

Then there was the gas. Anyone who has fermented vegetables knows the continuous bubbles and the pressure build-up. I saw the same thing in my ferment containers: the lid domes and collapses when pressure is released. Judging by what happened in my own body, it felt like that same “pressure and activity” was happening internally. Let me be euphemistic and say there was solid (and gaseous) evidence of highly active gut biology.

But producing bigger outputs is not the goal. The goal is to be healthier. At first, the results looked very good: I felt more energetic and started getting around to the jobs I had been putting off. Then things became more complicated, because I went too extreme and ate little more than fermented and leafy vegetables. That experiment taught me something important about balance and real-world eating.

A Practical Reality: Food Has to Work in Real Life

After going too “pure” on fermented and leafy vegetables, I found myself paying more attention to my granddaughters’ sweetie jar than normal. I did an unplanned experiment: a bit of candy bar did not satisfy hunger, it made it worse. A carb trial with cake made me even hungrier. For me, carbs seemed to drive hunger. I am not claiming a universal law here—just reporting how my body responded.

I have also been puzzled by exercise and hunger. I can feel hungry at the computer, then go for a walk and the hunger disappears. I cannot fully explain why; it just happens.

At one point I tested how I felt on a more carbohydrate-heavy approach, and it left me tired and less energetic. I switched course and ate something with more fat (in my case, fish). The surprise was how quickly I stopped feeling hungry and felt energetic again. It was not a moral victory for “fat” or “carb”; it was simply a reminder that my body needs solid food and some fat to feel full and energetic.

The Bigger Picture: Steps Toward Reversing Diabetes

Although I am focusing on fermented vegetables as a practical way to improve gut biology, I do not want to lose sight of the broader system. My overall aim is a practical approach to reversing diabetes with minimal reliance on drugs. The key points are: changing gut bacteria, adding minerals and trace elements (chromium, magnesium, vanadium and others), consuming phytonutrients (plant chemicals), intermittent fasting (to allow pancreatic beta cells to recover), and moderate exercise.

Changing gut biology is probably the most important part of the system. It may not reverse diabetes on its own, but unless you sort out the gut biology, it is unlikely diabetes can be reversed. That is the logic behind using fermented vegetables steadily, because they can act as both a pro-biotic and a pre-biotic.

Two Stages: Growing the Right Vegetables, Then Fermenting Them

In my system there are two stages in producing fermented vegetables. The first is producing biologically active vegetables as the raw material. For that I use a flood-and-drain wicking bed approach—an extension of standard wicking beds that I have been playing with for over twenty years.

The flood-and-drain concept (in the version I am working on) uses three containers. One is a water container with a float valve and a small pump. The pump periodically partially floods a growing bed and also a third chamber filled with composting material plus mineral supplements. At the end of the pump cycle, the water drains out of both the growing and composting beds, bringing nutrients and biology with it, ready for the next cycle.

This is mature technology. It suits amateur gardeners and it can be scaled up for commercial production. The replies I received suggest there are people willing to grow the biologically active vegetables—either at home or commercially—so I consider that part of the project largely solvable.

The Hard Part: Fermentation Is a Craft, Not a Factory Line

The real problems arise in the fermentation stage, where there are technical and logistical issues. Fermentation is essential a craft-based process. It works very well when someone experienced is watching over it, but it does not naturally lend itself to large-scale automated production and distribution. Small variations in vegetables, temperature, and starters can subtly change the outcome.

There are large processors that ferment vegetables, but to control the process they typically pasteurise the product to kill the bacteria. There are good reasons for this: if fermentation continues uncontrolled, pressure can build in bottles until they explode. Exploding bottles are not something supermarkets tolerate.

This creates a simple problem for my objective. People can buy fermented vegetables from the supermarket, but they are essentially “dead” and provide no probiotic benefit. That is not what I am after.

So What Now: The Distribution Problem

I was hoping there would be people willing to run small fermentation operations as an income stream, but the feedback suggests very few are interested—especially if it involves commercial sale. The technical challenge is how to create a system where people can buy living fermented vegetables. I do not have the full answer yet, but I do know my next step.

Next Step: Learn From Traditional Fermentation

My wife Xiulan went to China because her blood sugar levels were getting too high, and on a more traditional Chinese diet her levels were dropping. That is another piece of evidence (not proof, but evidence) that diet matters a great deal, and that diabetes may be reversible.

So I planned a trip to rural China to study traditional fermentation. They have been fermenting vegetables for thousands of years, and diabetes was virtually unknown until Western foods appeared. I may not find what I expect, but the logic is simple: if you never go, you never know.

Back Home: Pilot-Scale, Local Production

When we get back to Australia, my plan is to set up a small-scale fermenting operation—basically a pilot plant. If that works, it may provide a model for local fermentation plants. At this stage, my thinking is leaning toward small local production rather than large plants with the added complexity of distributing a living product.

Does It Work: Evidence, Limits, and Common Sense

I cannot run a major statistical trial with thousands of people. I do not have the resources or the time, and even if I did, individual variation makes “one-size-fits-all” answers unreliable. What I can do is test ideas on myself and share what I learn. For me, fermented vegetables produced strong signs of improved gut activity, and I believe that matters.

So it comes down to risks and rewards. On the positive side, if a practical system works, it may help reduce the fear of the classic complications of diabetes and help you live longer and better. On the negative side, it means paying attention to diet and habits. If you are on insulin-producing drugs, you need to be sensible and avoid hypos if your blood sugar drops; that is not drama, it is just caution and good monitoring.

My working position is straightforward. We already know the medical system has many tools for controlling high blood sugar (the symptom). What is controversial is reversing type 2 diabetes by improving insulin resistance and reducing reliance on medication. I am not offering magic numbers or perfect certainty. I am working toward a practical, testable system that ordinary people can apply, adapt, and judge by results.

Closing Note

I know there are important emails I have not replied to individually. I appreciate your patience. I am rethinking my strategy based on the feedback, and the next stage is learning more about how traditional fermentation produces robust, living food that people will actually eat. When I have clearer answers, I will write again and share the practical outcomes—what worked, what failed, and what seems worth adopting.

This article explains why standard dietary advice has failed to stop the diabetes epidemic and why universal diet rules do not work. Using an engineering mindset, lived experience, and observation, it argues for a pragmatic, individual approach based on restoring gut biology, reducing insulin overload, and measuring personal responses. Instead of chasing perfect theories, it focuses on what actually works for real people, offering a practical way forward for reversing or stabilising type 2 diabetes.

---

Introduction: When Theory Stops Helping

Over many years of observing people, studying diabetes, and experimenting on myself, I have become convinced that our current approach to diet and diabetes is fundamentally broken. Not because doctors or researchers are careless, but because the problem we are trying to solve is far more complex than the tools we are using. We are trying to force a messy biological system into tidy theoretical boxes, and the result is confusion, contradiction, and poor outcomes.

In engineering, when theory fails to predict reality, the response is not denial. The response is pragmatism. You test, observe, adjust, and repeat. That mindset is largely missing from diet science, where strong opinions often replace solid understanding. Diabetes has become a battleground of competing beliefs rather than a practical problem to be solved.

The Diabetes Epidemic and the System That Sustains It

Type 2 diabetes has exploded globally within a few decades. This alone should tell us that genetics cannot be the primary cause. Human biology does not change that quickly. What has changed is our food system, our activity levels, our exposure to chemicals, and our gut biology.

Yet the dominant medical response treats diabetes as a progressive, irreversible disease. Patients are told they will need medication for life, with doses steadily increasing until complications appear. This system manages symptoms effectively in the short term but does little to address root causes. Worse, it often reinforces the very mechanisms that drive the disease.

This is not a failure of individual doctors. It is a failure of the framework within which they operate. When a system is designed to manage disease rather than reverse it, that is exactly what it will do.

Why Dietary Science Produces Endless Conflict

Anyone trying to understand diet quickly encounters a wall of contradiction. One expert says fat is the problem. Another says carbohydrates are the enemy. A third insists fasting is essential. Each camp presents studies, statistics, and credentials, yet they cannot all be right in a universal sense.

The problem lies in how dietary science is conducted. Large population studies look for small correlations between food intake and disease outcomes. These correlations are then interpreted as causal relationships. In engineering terms, this would be like designing a bridge based on a 12 percent confidence level. No engineer would accept that, yet it is common practice in nutrition.

When results are weak, researchers often adjust assumptions, reframe conclusions, or copy earlier work that supports their beliefs. Over time, repetition creates the illusion of certainty. What we end up with is a map full of roads that do not exist on the ground.

The Central Fact: People Are Different

The most important fact about diet is also the most inconvenient: people respond differently to the same food. This is not speculation. It is easily observed. My wife, who is diabetic, reacts strongly to small amounts of sugar. I do not. Fatty foods affect me far more than they affect her. These responses are consistent and measurable.

These differences arise largely from variations in gut biology, hormone sensitivity, liver function, muscle metabolism, and lifestyle history. Expecting a single diet to suit everyone ignores this biological diversity. Until we accept this, diet advice will continue to fail.

An Engineering Perspective: Managing Ignorance

In engineering, we often deal with systems that are too complex to model fully. The solution is not to give up, but to manage ignorance intelligently. We build simplified models, test them in the real world, and refine them based on feedback.

Applied to diabetes, this means shifting focus from abstract theories to measurable outcomes. Instead of asking whether a diet is “right,” we ask whether it reduces blood sugar, improves insulin sensitivity, lowers fat stores, and increases wellbeing for a specific individual. If it does, it is useful. If it does not, it is abandoned.

This approach does not require complete understanding of gut biology or metabolism. It requires careful observation and honest measurement.

Intermittent Fasting as a Practical Lever

Intermittent fasting is one of the most effective tools I have found for reducing insulin overload. By limiting the time window in which food is consumed, insulin levels drop for extended periods, allowing the body to access stored fat. For many people, this improves insulin sensitivity over time.

What matters is flexibility. Fasting should not be treated as a rigid doctrine. An eight-hour eating window works for me. Others may need ten hours, or occasional longer fasts. The goal is not deprivation, but creating metabolic breathing space.

Fasting alone is not enough. It works best when combined with sensible food choices, gentle exercise, and stress reduction. Treated as one tool among many, it is powerful. Treated as a religion, it fails.

The Insulin Resistance Trap

A growing number of researchers argue that chronic insulin exposure drives insulin resistance. The body responds to excess insulin by reducing sensitivity, forcing even higher insulin levels to achieve the same effect. This feedback loop explains why diabetes often worsens over time under conventional treatment.

Breaking this cycle requires reducing insulin demand. That means lowering the frequency and intensity of sugar spikes, improving fat metabolism, and restoring hormonal balance. Pills can help manage symptoms, but they cannot fix the underlying problem.

Gut Biology: The Overlooked Control System

The gut is not just a digestive tube. It is a complex control system that influences appetite, metabolism, immunity, and mood. Trillions of microbes interact with our nervous and hormonal systems in ways we are only beginning to understand.

Gut biology responds quickly to changes in diet. Fibre-rich vegetables, fermented foods, and mineral-rich plants can shift microbial populations within days. This, in turn, affects hunger signals, insulin sensitivity, and inflammation.

Ignoring the gut while focusing solely on calories or macronutrients is a fundamental mistake. Restoring gut health is not optional; it is central to reversing metabolic disease.

Why Single Foods Are Not the Enemy

Blaming individual foods such as rice, fruit, or fat misses the point. Traditional diets around the world included these foods without diabetes epidemics. The problem is not the food in isolation, but the context in which it is consumed.

Highly processed foods, stripped of fibre and combined with sugars and fats in unnatural proportions, overwhelm our regulatory systems. Add reduced physical activity, chronic stress, and damaged gut biology, and diabetes becomes almost inevitable.

The Limits of Population Statistics

Statistics are useful for identifying broad trends, but they are poor tools for individual decision-making. Telling someone they have a slightly reduced risk of disease over twenty years offers little guidance when they are facing daily blood sugar spikes.

What matters to individuals is feedback. How does this meal affect me? How does this routine change my energy, hunger, and glucose levels? These questions can only be answered through personal measurement.

Mapping Individual Sensitivities

Modern tools make it possible to map personal sensitivities with remarkable accuracy. Weight, waist size, blood sugar, activity, sleep, stress, and diet can all be tracked. Small changes are introduced, and responses are observed.

Over time, patterns emerge. One person may find carbohydrates are their main trigger. Another may discover stress is the dominant factor. This information is far more valuable than generic advice.

From Personal Insight to Better Systems

When many individuals map their sensitivities, meaningful patterns can emerge without erasing individual differences. This bottom-up approach respects biological diversity while still allowing learning at scale.

It also reduces harm. Instead of forcing everyone into the same protocol, people adapt based on feedback. Failure becomes information, not shame.

A Practical Way Forward

A workable approach to reversing diabetes already exists. Restore gut biology with real food grown in healthy soil. Reduce insulin overload through timing and moderation. Move regularly in ways that suit the individual. Measure responses honestly and adjust.

This does not reject medicine. It complements it. Medication can be reduced gradually as metabolic health improves, under medical supervision.

Why This Matters Now

Diabetes is one of the greatest health challenges of our time. The human and economic costs are staggering. Many people are suffering unnecessarily because systems are slow to change and afraid to admit uncertainty.

Empowering individuals to understand and manage their own metabolism offers hope where none currently exists. It replaces fear with agency and confusion with clarity.

Conclusion: Pragging as a Way of Thinking

There is no perfect diet and no universal rulebook. What there is, however, is a practical way of thinking. Pragging means working with reality as it is, not as we wish it to be. It means observing, measuring, and adapting.

By applying this mindset to diabetes, many people can reverse or stabilise their condition. It may not be elegant. It may not satisfy academic purity. But it works, and that is what matters.

Diabesity is an umbrella term for the chronic diseases linked to diet, including diabetes, obesity, heart attacks, strokes, dementia, and a range of gut problems. This article explains why the epidemic keeps growing even with massive medical spending. It reviews the main diet “camps” (low fat, low carb, and vegetarian/slow carb), then looks for a more useful way to think about food and energy. It finishes with practical options and an action-focused conclusion: change outcomes, not arguments.

---

Part 1 — Diabesity: The Global Epidemic

“Diabesity” is a useful word because it bundles together the diseases that commonly travel as a pack. It includes diabetes and obesity, but also heart attacks, strokes, dementia, and a range of gut-related conditions such as irritable and leaky gut, Crohn’s, lupus, and coeliac disease. It is a miserable collection, and it has reached epidemic levels, causing personal suffering and costing trillions globally.

The scale is bad enough, but what is worse is the trend: despite huge research effort, the epidemic keeps expanding. A typical scenario is now routine. In Australia, every couple of minutes someone goes to the doctor for what they think is a normal check-up and is told they have Type 2 diabetes. They are warned about high blood sugar, complications like blindness and amputations, and an increased risk of early death. Then the patient is reassured: “Don’t worry, pills will control blood sugar.” And finally comes the familiar add-on: “Watch your diet and cut down on calories.”

The article challenges the idea that Type 2 diabetes must always be a one-way road. Many qualified doctors argue that diabetes can often be reversed. The practical problem is that most people are offered symptom control first, while the discussion about cause and reversal is either missing or too confusing to act on.

Part 2 — The Current Dietary Theories

Diet debates usually fall into three broad camps. The oldest and most widely accepted is “fat is bad.” The opposite camp argues “carbs are bad” and often leads to keto-style eating. Sitting in the middle are various versions of vegetarian or plant-heavy diets, sometimes framed as “slow carb” eating.

Fat Is Bad

The low-fat view argues that high blood sugar is a symptom. The deeper cause is insulin resistance: fat in muscles and organs blocks insulin so sugar cannot enter cells properly. This raises blood sugar and creates damage over time. It is widely accepted that excess insulin plays a major role in obesity. Some doctors (such as Jason Fung) argue that high insulin can drive increasing insulin resistance, becoming a compounding problem.

Carbs Are Bad

The low-carb camp argues the “fat is bad” story is built on weak science. They claim people do not get fat simply because they eat too much fat. Instead, something inside the body decides to store energy as fat. When that happens, food is stored rather than made available as energy, leaving people hungry, so they eat more. In this view, people do not get fat because they eat too much; they eat too much because they are getting fat. This logic has helped drive adoption of keto diets, which minimise sugars and most carbs. Both camps generally agree that carbs quickly become sugars in the body, and sugars can become fat.

The Low-Fatters Strike Back

Critics of strict low-carb diets often accept that keto can work in the short term: weight drops and blood sugars improve. Their warning is that a high-fat diet may increase fat in muscles and organs, increasing insulin resistance “under the surface.” While carbs stay very low, blood sugar looks better. But when people eventually return to eating carbs (as many do), the increased insulin resistance becomes obvious: weight and blood sugar rise again. In short, they argue the benefits can be temporary and hard to sustain.

The Vegetarians and “Sugar Blockers”

Plant-based advocates make two key points. First, fruit and vegetables contain minerals and phytonutrients essential for health. Many people accept this, but the article notes research suggesting modern produce can be less nutrient dense than it once was, and not enough people pay attention to how food is grown. Second, some in the plant-based camp argue the damaging factor is the blood sugar spike after meals. They suggest that certain plant components can block or slow sugar absorption. That can reduce the sugar spike and also reduce the insulin spike, which may matter even more. Fibres, both soluble and insoluble, are presented as key “sugar blockers.”

Life Should Be Fun

A common problem across all three diet philosophies is that they usually require giving up a major food group or living with strict rules. Even if a diet “works,” it can feel miserable. The author makes this personal: he is part of a Chinese family and community, visits China often, and describes Chinese food culture as superb. The question becomes real and practical: should he sit in the corner and watch others enjoy feasts, or join in? If people have been feasting for centuries without obvious harm, it may be more sensible to ask what made that possible rather than accept that a joyless diet is the only path.

Key Points So Far

The “street reality” is that many doctors default to pill-based management. Diet-based reversal is supported by some qualified doctors, but those doctors do not agree on a single best diet. That disagreement discourages many people from acting. Even when people want to try diet, the diets presented can seem boring compared with real food cultures that appear to thrive. The article frames this section as review, not conclusion, and moves on to search for a more reliable way to decide what to do.

Part 3 — Searching for the Real Truth

The internet makes it dangerously easy to “prove” almost anything. If you like chocolate and red wine, you can search and find papers supporting benefits. If you like pork crackling and pomegranate, you can do the same. This is not real truth-finding; it is preference-finding. A better approach is closer to a court method: search for both benefits and hazards, read what the papers actually say, and then form an informed opinion.

The article offers a simple common-sense filter: if a food has been eaten for centuries (like rice in China or cheese in France), it is unlikely to be the core cause of a modern epidemic that surged rapidly. Unless something major changed in the 1980s (unlikely), blaming those traditional foods is probably missing the real driver. The author also adds a “being old” advantage: he remembers life before the epidemic, when infectious diseases were common, but diabetes was rarely discussed. That memory supports the view that diabesity is modern and linked to modern changes.

History, Feasts, and the Limits of “Eat Less, Move More”

Overweight people have existed for centuries. The article uses colourful examples like King Henry VIII, Friar Tuck, and Buddha statues. But today’s scale is different: one in three globally, and even one in two in some regions. The author dismisses simplistic folk explanations and asks what truly changed.

The “over-eating and under-exercising” theory is tested as a plausible idea. People are less physically active, but society has been car-based for more than fifty years, which predates much of the current spike. The author also points out the common sense that “you cannot walk off a bad diet.” The question becomes: are we simply eating more? His observations from cultures with feasting traditions suggest total intake alone is not the key. Eating patterns may have shifted, but the real revolution is in how we grow and prepare food, including herbicides, insecticides, and antibiotics used in agriculture and animal production.

Energy: Quantity and Quality

The article then turns sharply against what it sees as sloppy “calorie balance” thinking. We do not eat calories floating in space; we eat food (matter) that contains chemical energy. Energy has quantity (calories or joules), but also quality (how usable it is). In engineering terms, energy quality links to entropy. A small amount of energy at high quality can do work; the same amount spread thinly at low quality is far less useful.

This matters because different foods with the same “calorie count” can behave very differently in the body. The article uses a blunt comparison: cabbage versus cheesecake. A cabbage releases energy slowly and steadily, which suits the way humans evolved to handle food. Cheesecake is “high octane” and hits hard and fast, and the body may not know what to do with the surge, so it stores it. The point is not that cheesecake is evil. The point is that treating all calories as equal is too simplistic to be useful.

A Simple Personal Experiment

The article proposes a practical test to challenge simplistic calorie ideas. After a normal week, look at what happens after a massive feast. The next day, you may notice a lot more “output.” That output contains energy; manure can be used as fuel in some communities. The body can decide it does not need the extra matter and simply gets rid of it. This is used to argue that the story “you gain fat just because you ate extra calories” is incomplete and can lead to faulty conclusions.

The conclusion of this section is presented as a working hypothesis: diabesity is driven by changes in the type of food we eat, and those changes are strongly linked to how food is grown and processed. The author notes that it is easy to blame “evil barons,” but reality is more complex. Modern food systems have achieved astounding productivity, but also waste around 30% of food to landfill, and the health impact is not being managed.

Part 4 — The Wonders and Hazards of Innovation

The author states clearly: he is not anti-progress. His career was built on innovation, including computer-aided engineering and building a successful technology company. He supports innovation because it can create wealth and improve life. The warning is that innovation has a dark side. The benefits of an innovation are not always spread evenly.

History provides many examples. The plough increased productivity but changed land ownership and social structure. Military innovations gave some groups devastating advantage. The steam engine increased output but also amplified class divides. In modern times, productivity has exploded, but wealth distribution has become extreme, and multinational corporations can be beyond the control of individual governments. The author says he cannot fix the entire political-economic system, but he can focus on a narrower target: how the food system contributes to diabesity.

The article includes a moral line: “evil flourishes when good people stand idly by.” Applied here, the argument is that modern food production increased volume but often reduced fibre, key minerals, phytonutrients, and biological life that sustains health. Small farmers were squeezed, large farms became tied to multinational supply chains, and the incentives shifted away from long-term health.

TV Science and the 2/3 Question

The article criticises “TV science” explanations of insulin as too tidy. They may illustrate a mechanism, but they do not answer the most important question: why can about two-thirds of people eat what looks like a terrible diet and remain healthy, while one-third develop diabesity? This “two-thirds still OK” question is described as the key puzzle we need to solve if we want real progress.

Genetics may play a role for some, and epigenetics may influence how genes are turned on or off. But the author’s working hypothesis is that gut biology dominates susceptibility. If one-third are affected, two-thirds are resistant. How? The article “puts money” on gut biology as the control system that decides whether food becomes energy, fat storage, or waste.

Part 6 — Options and Action Plans to Combat Diabesity

The article presents three broad options. Option 1 is to rely on pharmaceuticals. Pills can control blood sugar, which makes life tolerable, but they do not reverse diabetes on their own. Many people still fail to manage the system well, leading to blindness, amputations, and early death. Governments try to provide support, but the scale makes it difficult. This is described as not the preferred option.

Option 2 is to change diet. Low fat, low carb, and vegetarian approaches all have evidence that they can reverse diabesity for some people. The problem is that none appears to be a universal solution, because people are different. A “self-selection” effect occurs: people tend to gravitate to the clinic or diet that suits their body, then success is reported, but that does not mean the method fits everyone. The article suggests a practical mindset: we may not fully understand the body, but we can still “manage our ignorance” and search for what works.

Option 3 is to change gut bacteria. Unhealthy food is widespread and hard to avoid, especially when travelling. Yet two-thirds of people stay healthy, implying some internal control system is protecting them. The article points to gut biology again. A striking fact is used: faecal transplants can reliably turn a fat person thin, even though we do not fully understand the mechanism. This supports the gut-control hypothesis. The author jokes that there will not be a bulk “commodity market” for poo, but stresses the practical point: diet can change gut bacteria and therefore change decisions made inside the body.

Diet Data, Engineering Standards, and Why 15% Is Not Good Enough

The article contrasts engineering standards with diet statistics. In manufacturing, engineers aim for processes “in control,” where error rates are tiny. In diet research, small trends like 15% are sometimes treated as meaningful, but from an engineering lens that suggests the process is out of control and an unknown factor is dominating outcomes. The argument is not anti-medicine; the author notes that in surgery, high success rates are expected and reassuring. The problem is that diet outcomes vary widely, meaning individual differences (especially gut biology) may be a huge missing factor.

No One Diet for Everyone

The article returns to a practical conclusion: people handle foods differently. Genes vary and epigenetics may matter, but the largest variation may be gut biology, which is good news because gut biology can be influenced. The implication is simple: rather than endless arguing over a single “best” diet, people may need tailored diets, or better still, better guts.

Old Cars: You Don’t Need to Understand Everything to Drive

The author uses a personal metaphor. When he was young, he drove old cars and understood them because he had to rebuild them. Modern cars are full of microcomputers and he does not understand them, but he can still drive easily because the systems assist and correct. He then applies that to the gut: we may not understand the “computer” inside us yet, but we can still let it do its job if we restore the conditions that allow it to function well.

Part 7 — Decision Time

The point of the Gbiota project is not just to grow food in a novel way. The goal is to show that eating plants grown in mineral-rich, biologically active soil improves health and becomes a practical tool against diabesity. The author argues that waiting for perfect science may be backwards: often an engineering breakthrough proves something matters first, then science explains it and improves it. This is how innovation has worked for centuries. The task now is to demonstrate that how food is grown matters for health, and to use that evidence to drive broader change.

Eco-villages can help reverse the epidemic of chronic diseases by doing what normal life often cannot: removing toxins, restoring gut biology, and supporting people to break addictive food patterns. The approach is practical. First rebuild the gut with a largely plant-based diet grown in biologically active, nutrient-rich soil and free of toxins. Then use continuous blood sugar monitoring to find the diet, exercise, and routine that works for each individual. Guests learn skills they can take home, and the village gains a valuable and ethical income stream.

---

Colin Austin — 17 June 2018.

Summary

Eco-villages can play a crucial role in reversing the current epidemic of chronic diseases. The epidemic is driven by two forces working together: toxic chemicals and antibiotics compromising the gut biome control system, and addictive foods distorting our eating patterns. A practical solution is to first fix the gut using a largely plant-based diet, with plants grown in biologically active, nutrient-rich soil and free of toxins, then use continuous sugar monitoring to find the diet and exercise pattern that best suits each individual.

Eco-villages can grow this food using the Gbiota system, restore intelligent gut biology, and provide structured support to break food addictions through health farm stays. People are different and need routines tailored to them. Guests are fitted with continuous blood sugar monitors and learn how to grow and cook food so they can manage health after they leave. This is a desirable social service and can also generate significant revenue for the village.

The Chronic Disease Epidemic

We are now in the midst of an epidemic of chronic (non-infectious) diseases. The list includes diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, dementia, Alzheimer’s, cancer, and more. Aggression, depression, and mood swings are also thought to be related. These conditions are often grouped under “metabolic syndrome” or, in everyday language, “diabesity.”

The scale is confronting. A few decades ago, fewer than 1% of people were diabetic. Overweight was less common, and overweight people did not routinely progress into diabetes. Today, about one in three people suffer some form of diabesity. This is an average: young people are relatively free, but as we age the proportion rises rapidly. By about forty, there can be an even chance of suffering diabesity, and the risk increases with age. Many people can now expect to die younger than normal from a chronic disease.

The personal costs are severe. Diabetes is a major cause of amputations and the single most common cause of blindness. The economic costs are staggering, with global health expenditure running into trillions of dollars. Put bluntly, there is not enough money or enough doctors to handle the scale of the epidemic, especially with the rate of increase and the trend toward younger sufferers.

Symptoms vs Causes

Modern science has made excellent progress in managing the symptoms of diabetes. We now have a range of progressively stronger pills that can manage high blood sugar, which is the symptom of diabetes. Without these medicines, many diabetics would suffer rapid decline, with amputations, blindness, and early death.

What is less encouraging is that science has made relatively little improvement in addressing the basic causes. At first sight the cause seems simple: excess fat in muscles and liver blocks the entry of sugar, so insulin can no longer transport sugar into muscle effectively. It sounds like the solution should also be simple: “get rid of the fat.” But the human body is not simple. Slogans like “eat less, exercise more” have largely failed because our internal control systems are complex and powerful.

The gut biome is an intelligent system (the enteric nervous system) that automatically controls many functions. If this system is compromised, dietary control cannot be reliably achieved by willpower alone. The source of the problem has to be fixed first.

The Body as a Heat Engine

To clarify the problem, it helps to view the body through a different model: the body as a heat engine. This is not meant to reduce a human being to a machine, but the basic laws of thermodynamics still apply. The body can take in food from seal meat in the Arctic to coconuts in the tropics and convert it into a fundamental energy source: sugar (glucose). It can also convert food into the materials needed to repair and rebuild the body.

We do not eat “calories” as physical things; calories are a measure of energy. We eat matter: bread, cheese, meat, vegetables, and so on. Food contains carbon and hydrogen that can be chemically processed to release energy. Energy also has a second property: how useful it is. Engineers describe this with concepts such as entropy. The principle is simple: useful energy can do work. In the body, some energy becomes mechanical work (movement, activity), and the rest becomes less useful energy, including heat. That is why we get warm when we move.

Gut Biology Affects Efficiency

Turning these principles into daily reality is more complicated. The efficiency of extracting energy from food varies. Gut biology matters. Some microbes are very effective at extracting energy from food, while a different gut mix can mean more food passes through and is excreted. This helps explain why two people can eat the same meal and get different outcomes. It also hints at why “one diet for everyone” struggles in real life.

The Clever Control System

More important than fuel itself is the control system that manages fuel. It helps to compare this to a modern car engine. A car needs different amounts of fuel at idle, acceleration, or cruising. A small computer reads sensors and adjusts fuel injection and timing automatically.

The human control system is far more complex. Even before we wake, it senses patterns and light level and may release cortisol to tell organs to release sugar into the bloodstream, preparing energy for the day. It makes us hungry at meal times and satisfied when we have eaten enough. It can even push cravings for particular types of food depending on what it “believes” the body needs at that moment.

For thousands of generations, this system kept people in balance. It made people eat enough to survive and function, but not so much that they became dangerously fat, because being too fat could be lethal in a world where running from danger mattered. This faithful system has served humans well, but in modern life it is being damaged and manipulated, and the result is diabesity.

What Research Says: Diet, Not Pills

The epidemic has triggered major research. Scientists are faced with facts that are difficult to argue with. Forty years ago, most people did not worry about weight. Only about 1 in 100 suffered diabesity. Now about a third have diabesity, another third are overweight, and another third appear healthy even if they eat junk food. Genetics cannot change so fast, so the question becomes: what changed?

The document points to two major changes. First, toxic chemicals (herbicides, insecticides), chemical fertilisers, and imprudent use of antibiotics are compromising gut biology. Second, foods combining fat, sugar, and salt are addictive. Large chemical and food processing industries have strong incentives to protect sales, which can create confusion and controversy, leaving the public overwhelmed.

Gut Biome: The Key

There is strong evidence that gut biology influences weight and metabolic health. Faecal implants provide non-debatable evidence that gut biology can drive major changes. Early experiments on mice suggested that changing gut biology could shift obesity outcomes. Similar principles have been applied in humans, reinforcing that the gut is not a passive digestive tube; it is an active control system.

Gut biology is complex. Thousands of families, species, and sub-species have been identified. They influence automatic body functions, particularly appetite, and they influence how food is managed: stored as fat, used as energy, or excreted. The gut behaves like a second brain. Trillions of cells communicate and influence decisions through hormones and nervous signals.

The gut brain communicates with the head brain through the vagus nerve. It sends signals that influence appetite, fullness, mood, immune function, and more. There are many hormones involved. Ghrelin can drive hunger. Leptin and other messengers help signal fullness. The point is not to memorise names but to recognise the sophistication of the system.

Toxins and the Achilles Heel

This control system is delicate. It needs the right conditions to function and breed. Many microbes can be harmed by aggressive chemicals used in agriculture. Even if chemicals are argued to be “safe” for human tissue in some contexts, they can still be devastating for gut microbes at very low concentrations. Because the gut is an ecosystem, killing some species can open the door for harmful species to flourish.

The gut brain is the body’s control centre. Damage the fuel control system in a car and performance collapses. Damage the body’s control system and health collapses. We may not fully understand all mechanisms yet, but we do know something practical: before widespread chemical use in agriculture, diabetes was rare. Restoring gut biology becomes the first step in reversing diabetes.

Addictive Foods and the Slide into Diabetes

A damaged control system makes people more vulnerable to addiction. Dopamine is a reward hormone. Foods that combine sugar, fat, and salt—ice cream, sweet biscuits, pizza, cheesecake—can create cravings that feel irresistible. The sight or smell of these foods can trigger eating, whether hungry or not.

This leads to fat gain. Fat gain alone is not always catastrophic; people can be fat and still relatively healthy. The disaster begins when fat blocks sugar from entering muscles and liver, creating insulin resistance. That is the pathway into Type 2 diabetes, blindness, and amputations.

It is unrealistic to blame people and tell them to “just stop.” Food companies spend billions promoting high-sugar products, often with misleading health messages. In the real world, addiction is powerful. Directly fighting addiction with willpower often fails. A better approach is to build an environment where the dopamine triggers are removed and healthier routines can take over.

What Does Not Work

Repeating “eat less and exercise more” has not worked. If it worked, shopping centres would not be full of increasingly overweight people. We are bombarded with diet propaganda through media, books, and blogs, but the trend continues. People are also overwhelmed by contradictions: fat vs carbs, fruit is good vs fruit is bad, fasting is great vs fasting is stressful. For every view there is an equal and opposite view, often from qualified professionals.

This confusion tells us something useful. Many people do not need another theory. They want to know what works for them, as individuals, in real life.

General Theory vs Individual Solution

Science aims to develop general laws and general solutions, and when a technology matures this works well. But chronic disease is not yet a mature science with agreed fundamentals. Different experts disagree because people are different. Diet and exercise must be tailored to individuals. So the pragmatic path is:

First fix the gut with a largely plant-based diet, with plants grown in biologically active, nutrient-rich soil and free of toxins. Then use continuous sugar monitoring to find the diet and exercise routine that best suits the individual.

Continuous Blood Sugar Monitoring

Continuous glucose monitoring makes individual solutions practical. A small patch on the arm produces a graph of blood sugar. Results are quick. You can see which foods cause spikes within hours, and you can see whether a routine is reducing insulin resistance within days.

People vary greatly. Some handle treat foods without large spikes; others are highly sensitive. Monitoring reveals this. It also reveals useful combinations. A food that spikes alone may be moderated by fibre or “sugar blocking” foods. Exercise effects can be surprisingly powerful: even a walk can drop blood sugar sharply.

The aim is not simply to avoid spikes. The deeper aim is to reduce insulin resistance by reducing the fat that blocks insulin. The trace can show this. A large spike with long recovery suggests poor insulin sensitivity. Over time, improved sensitivity means smaller spikes and faster recovery. The specific protocol may vary from person to person, which is exactly why monitoring is valuable.

There is no magic here. With some training, carers can learn to interpret graphs and coach guests. One important proviso remains: carers are not doctors and cannot change prescriptions. As insulin sensitivity improves, medication may need reduction, and that requires professional medical advice as part of the eco-village support system.

Eco-Villages and Health Farm Stays

This is where eco-villages have a major role. Researchers running large statistical studies cannot give concentrated attention to individuals. In a village setting, carers can provide focused support to small groups, helping each guest find the diet and exercise pattern that works for them.

Most people can reverse diabetes so they no longer need medication and become sensitive to insulin again. In reality, many will remain prone and must watch diet and exercise, but that is far better than a life of pills that only suppress symptoms.

Credibility: It Must Work

Eco-villages can become an important part of the response to diabesity, but credibility is critical. The system must produce clear positive results. This matters for guests and also for the medical profession, who will be the primary referral pathway and therefore a key source of village revenue.

The number of sufferers is vast: millions in Australia and well over a hundred million in China. It is impossible to give everyone one-to-one treatment by doctors alone. But an eco-village can bring a team approach, supported by medical practitioners when needed.

Practical Roles in a Village

Reversing diabetes is described as a two-stage operation: first restore gut biology, then break addictive cravings and build a new routine. A village can distribute these roles across residents.

Growers can produce food that restores the gut biome by growing plants without toxins in biologically active, nutrient-rich soil. This is why Gbiota beds were developed. Guests eat this food to give gut biology a chance to recover.

Cooks can make healthy food attractive. Many people accept vegetables are good, but for someone addicted to junk food, plain vegetables can feel boring. Culinary skill matters. Flavour balancing (sweet and sour) and use of herbs and spices can improve appeal. Many herbs also support metabolic health and can reduce glycaemic load.

Carers provide day-to-day coaching and emotional support. Overworked doctor consultations often alienate patients. Support works better in groups, with carers who understand the process and can guide people through the difficult first weeks. A supportive environment is vital because stress hormones such as cortisol can raise blood sugar and worsen the situation. The good news is that cravings can reduce significantly within a couple of weeks if the environment is supportive and consistent.

Hunger and Fat Removal

Diabetes is driven by insulin resistance caused by excess fat blocking insulin’s job. Pills can manage blood sugar, but no pill reliably cures insulin resistance. The body can remove the blocking fat, but it generally requires experiencing a little regular hunger. This is uncomfortable but real.

One role of a carer is to help guests become sensitive again to the body’s signals of hunger and fullness. These signals evolved in times when shortage was more common than excess, so “stop eating” signals can be weaker than “eat now” signals. Monitoring can help confirm when blood sugar has dropped to a level where fat removal is more likely to occur.

Education: The Lasting Outcome

A farm stay is not a once-off miracle. The focus must be education. Guests need the skills to keep going at home: how to grow some food (even in an apartment using a wicking bed), what plants support health, how to cook so food is appealing, and how not to destroy useful biology in preparation. They also need basic understanding of ecosystems: harmful organisms are not eliminated forever with toxins; balance is created when beneficial organisms outcompete harmful ones.

Eco-villages have the opportunity to become ambassadors to the broader community by demonstrating that a community can be both sustainable and prosperous. The aim is that everyone leaving the village knows the diet best suited to their metabolism, how to obtain the food (by growing or careful buying), how to prepare it so it tastes good, and how to listen to their gut signals for when to eat and when to stop.

Social Responsibility

Life is far better now than in the era of world wars, the Great Depression, and mass starvation. Yet we live in an age where factory farming and the excess power of multinationals are damaging health. This is not easy to change, but demonstrating that healthy food and an active lifestyle work is a practical step. The rise in physical ailments is obvious. There is also subjective evidence of increased aggression, depression, and higher suicide rates, which may be associated with declining diet and health.

Eco-villages can become ambassadors for food that makes people healthy, and for a practical approach to reversing diabetes that replaces fear with measurable progress.

More information: email me.

Many people are told Type 2 diabetes is for life and will only get worse, but that is only part of the truth. For most people, diabetes can be reversed, although not by a simple pill. This article explains why diabetes exploded so quickly, what research (including Roy Taylor’s work) reveals about fat in the liver and pancreas, and why gut biology and modern food chemistry matter. It finishes with a practical path forward: real food, low toxins, and personalised glucose monitoring.

---

What the Doctors Say (and Why It Feels Hopeless)

Every day people go to their doctor after a routine blood test and are told they have diabetes. They are often told it is for life, not reversible, and will get progressively worse. The message usually continues: pills can manage blood sugar for a while, then stronger pills will be needed, eventually insulin injections, and likely an early death—often from a heart attack. People are also warned about blindness and limb amputations if they do not take the pills.

Most people hearing that news feel frightened, but they also feel trapped. A common reaction is to decide to “enjoy life while it lasts” and keep eating and drinking what they like, because the story makes the outcome feel inevitable. But while there is some truth in the doctor’s warning, it is only part of the truth. For the vast majority of people, diabetes can be reversed or even cured, but not by a simple pill. People deserve the facts so they can make their choice.

The Almost Unbelievable Story: Why Diabetes Exploded

Diabetes is not new. There are references going back to ancient times, but historically it affected very few people—typically those who were highly sensitive—less than 1% of the population. What changed is that diabetes is now part of a wider explosion of chronic, non-communicable diseases. Heart attacks were among the first to receive major study after the 1950s, but heart attacks are a “zero–one” event, so science had to rely heavily on population correlations rather than clean experiments.

Low Fat vs Low Carb: A War That Missed the Real Complexity

Ancel Keyes observed that people who died prematurely from heart attacks often carried a lot of body fat and concluded that fat caused heart attacks. This view became widely promoted and helped drive a low-fat craze. The food industry loved low-fat messaging because it enabled foods to be built around low-cost carbohydrates and sugar—ironically becoming a major contributor to the diabetes epidemic.

Later, writers such as Nina Teicholz and Gary Taubes challenged the “fat is bad” paradigm, contributing to the rise of keto and other low-carb approaches and fuelling the “low fat vs low carb” war. But this battle has become dated because it often oversimplifies how the human body works. Eating fat does not automatically mean that fat enters the bloodstream as fat, and the body can convert carbs into sugar and then sugar into fat. Oversimplification is dangerous because it makes people fight over slogans instead of mechanisms.

Professor Roy Taylor: The Mechanism That Changed Everything

Professor Roy Taylor of Newcastle University is recognised for moving our understanding forward and showing something that should have triggered a true paradigm shift: Type 2 diabetes is not necessarily a “forever” disease. Yet many practitioners still tell patients it is not reversible, which the document describes as a social tragedy, because it leaves people feeling doomed when they may have a strong chance of recovery.

Taylor’s explanation is simple and practical. We eat food that contains fat or is converted into fat. The body stores this fuel first in the liver, which acts like an energy tank—storing when fuel is available and releasing when fuel is needed. This is normal and healthy. Problems begin when that fuel tank overflows. Excess fat begins to spill into places it should not be, including muscles, where it blocks sugar (in plain language) from entering muscles properly. This is an early stage of diabetes: there is still plenty of insulin, but it does not work well. The important point is that this stage is readily reversible.

Stage two is more serious: the pancreas stops making sufficient insulin. Older descriptions called this “beta cells burning out,” but Taylor’s team used MRI techniques to show a different picture. Fat overflows from the liver into the pancreas and floods it with fat, stopping beta cells from working. The breakthrough was showing that a restricted diet can clean the pancreas of excess fat and allow insulin production to restart—“bye bye diabetes.” Michael Mosley has suggested it may not be necessary to restrict diet as harshly as Taylor’s experimental protocol and that a lighter Mediterranean style approach may be adequate for some people.

If Diabetes Can Be Reversed, Why Did It Rise So Fast?

Proving diabetes is reversible and describing the mechanism is a major step, but it opens up deeper questions: why do some people suffer diabetes while others seem immune, and why did diabetes increase exponentially in such a short time? A simple answer is genes, but genes do not change that fast. Epigenetics is sometimes suggested, but it still does not neatly explain the speed and scale of change. So we must look for another explanation.

Giulia Enders and the Gut: The Under-Rated Organ

The document points to Giulia Enders and her book about the gut as a major influence. If you are already immersed in gut biology you may know it, but the point here is not just that the gut contains many organisms, but that it behaves like a complex decision-making system. We can describe what gut microbes do in mechanical terms (species, roles, digestion), and science is progressing quickly there using DNA testing. But there is a deeper question: how does the gut “decide” what to do with food—use it for energy now, store it for later, or send it out?

We know some key facts that matter for diabetes. There are at least a thousand different species in the gut, and if subspecies are included, over six thousand. Each person’s gut biome can be very different, which fits with why people respond differently to the same foods. These organisms breed rapidly, so they can adapt quickly. They also have something called horizontal gene transfer, where living microbes can exchange genes in real time. It is an astonishing capability, and it suggests that the gut ecosystem can change quickly under new pressures, for better or worse.

Insulin, Leptin, and the High-Speed Slide

Insulin is at the heart of diabetes. Most people know the term “insulin resistance,” even if the inner detail is unclear. The document also calls insulin the “fat hormone” because higher insulin encourages fat storage. Here is the trap: fat storage increases insulin resistance, so the pancreas produces more insulin to force sugar into muscles, which increases fat storage further. This creates a slippery slope that accelerates over time.

At first glance the solution seems simple: eat less so there is no surplus to store. But it is not that simple because hunger and satiety signals can be disrupted. Leptin is described as a hormone that tells us we are full and should stop eating. Some people remain slim easily because their “stop” signals work well. But just as we can become insulin resistant, we can become leptin resistant. This is a double hit: we store fat more easily and we also feel hungry even when we are already overloaded with stored fuel.

Toxins, Excesses, and What Changed in a Few Decades

The document argues we need another Roy Taylor-level breakthrough to fully explain gut decision-making, but that is an incredibly complex problem and people need practical options now. So we look back: only a few decades ago, gut systems appeared to be working far better for most people. Since then, we have seen excessive use of chemicals in food production—chemicals designed to kill bugs. If our gut health depends on microbes, then chemicals that kill bugs in the field may also harm the “bugs” in our bodies when we eat the crops.

Diet has also changed dramatically. Many common foods are loaded with sugar. Even fruit and vegetables can be described as a double problem: chemical residues and low levels of essential trace minerals. People may believe they can wash chemicals off the surface, but the document warns that some newer approaches build toxins into seeds so the entire plant carries them, making removal impossible. A small bright spot is suggested: because some of these chemicals also harm bees, governments may eventually be forced to ban them.

The Port in the Storm: A Practical Path Forward

So where is the bright light? The document proposes combining the core mechanism from Roy Taylor (reducing fat overload so insulin function returns) with a better food strategy. Instead of meal-replacement shakes, the idea is to feed people real food—largely but not exclusively plant food—grown in biologically active soils. The aim is to restore gut biology to a healthier state, reducing both insulin and leptin resistance over time.

The second practical step is to stop chasing a single general solution that applies to everyone. For now, the better approach is to accept that people (or at least their guts) are different. That means fitting people with continuous blood sugar monitoring so we can see the direct effects of specific foods and routines, and then tailor a diet to the individual. Personalisation is not a marketing slogan here; it is a practical response to real human variability.

Links Mentioned in the Source

The original document includes a series of video links to support the ideas discussed above. For convenience, they are listed here as plain links:

• YouTube link 1
• YouTube link 2
• YouTube link 3
• YouTube link 4
• YouTube link 5
• YouTube link 6
• YouTube link 7
• YouTube link 8
• YouTube link 9
• YouTube link 10
• YouTube link 11
• YouTube link 12

Citizen Research and the Yangtou Village Option

The document closes with a practical invitation. Members of the Gbiota club may be willing to participate in citizen research, but the Yangtou village farm stay project offers the possibility of a more controlled project. The goal is simple: remove toxins where possible, rebuild food quality through biologically active soils, use the best current science to reverse diabetes for most people, and use continuous monitoring to tailor the solution to the individual.

Colin Austin — 9 July 2018.