In that case, you might want to try mall-walking or laps around a large store. If you develop a habit of exercise (and walking is exercise) then you might consider a gym membership.
Just IMO, YMMV
I prick either the left ring finger or pinky, but my fingers are tough due to too many years as an ironworker 
I’ve taken to the Boost Glucose Control drimks for my “breakfast”.
Mission makes a very good carb concious/zero net carb flour tortilla that is fantastic. The though of giving up tortillas almost did me in, until I found these.
Starting new habits is hard, but the what to do is an overwhelming variety of options! It doesn’t need to be outside. It doesn’t need a gym. Or trekking to a mall. Unless that’s what you enjoy!
It can be just sets of jumping jacks. Then advancing to alternating with sets of air squats. Walking up and down stairs advancing to carrying light weights as you do … no stairs use a step stool … there are endless possibilities!!! Just don’t let the excuses be endless plus one!
And benefits are front loaded. Very little has huge impacts.
Maybe read through @Dr_Paprika ’s weight lifting thread? It isn’t just about weightlifting.
FWIW, it’s possible to combine the two. I’m pre-diabetic myself, and have been gradually trying to adopt that type of diet. It’s mostly plant based, maybe 90% or so. Start with low carb / low calorie vegetables. Leafy greens, cabbage, onions, garlic, peppers, celery, raw carrots, and other such low calorie / low carb vegetables. Then add vegetable sources of fats like avocado, olive oil, coconut, pine nuts, macadamias, etc. Then add lower carb fruits like berries. Then add an occasional bit of meat, maybe about 4 ounces per day, and focusing on fish like salmon with the occasional bit of grass fed beef, pasture raised chicken, etc. Avoid starches, legumes, simple sugars, and other highly processed foods.
That’s a keto diet, but not the sort that was popularized by Dr. Atkins back in the day. And it seems like the sort of thing that would be beneficial for people with T2DM.
Not criticizing, just making sure I get it. Pretty much a Mediterranean Diet without the whole grains and beans? Biggest calorie contribution from healthy fats.
Right. Taking out the carbs from starches and legumes and getting those calories from fats from avocado, olive oil, and true nuts.
Sounds like a very reasonable option to me. (Although as an individual I like me my beans and complex carbs.)
This article is not specific to T2DM but is still of note to the OP:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joim.13639
Short version is that the so called low fat diet (high on plant proteins, complex carbs, low saturated fat), even less ideal versions of it, had much better impact on mortality rates than any of the low carb patterns.
General media summary presentation below.
Wading through the article more carefully I need to correct myself: there was overlap between the best low carb and less good low fat options each with modest improvements on mortality.
I think you guys might be defining “similar to exercise” differently. Tater may be saying that the diet helps control weight as well as regular exercise-- which it may do for people who find it easy to follow, a specific subgroup, and not necessarily what will be studied in a random group appointed for a trial. The doc is saying that it isn’t anything like exercise in the way it benefits your body (I can’t read the article, because it requires a subscription); I’d easily believe that, though.
Those two ideas aren’t really in opposition.
Of course, I might be completely wrong in my readings of the two posters, especially since I can’t read the article, and don’t have time this morning to go Googling the info someplace else.
Thought I did gift link. Sorry. Here.
Exercise has hosts of metabolic and anti inflammatory benefits more than it has impact on weight loss. Great at the former mediocre at the latter. Time restricted eating apparently not although it was hoped that it would. And nothing magical for weight loss beyond less calories in. It was hoped that there would be metabolic magic and some reason to expect it would.
There might be a role for time-restricted eating in people who might otherwise snack every waking hour. If it works for them great.
I’ve long since come to the conclusion that no weight loss plan works for everyone. And likewise there’s no one-size-fits-all dietary habit, either.
Some people have a good internal sense of time, and others don’t. I wake up in the middle of the night, and know within about an hour what the time is. Even if I have not looked at a clock in a couple of hours when I am awake, I know within about 20 minutes what time it is.
Only time it fails is when I am sick and have a fever, and for some reason I’ll never figure out, during the last few months I was pregnant.
So, I’ll know how long it’s been since I’ve eaten, and I know that if I feel peckish, but I ate an hour ago, it’s probably because I smell the neighbors cooking, or I saw an ad for something I particularly like. I can stop and analyse it, figure it out, and know I don’t need to eat, and surprise! I stop feeling hungry.
Someone who has no sense of time can’t do that.
So a diet that involves clockwatching and alarms might work.
I also know people who say that a breakfast of just coffee and juice-- no solid food-- keeps them alert, but doesn’t make them very hungry for lunch. Whereas a standard American breakfast makes them hungry for a big lunch at least 4 hours later. So skipping breakfast altogether, as long as you don’t get low blood sugar, may cause you to be less hungry at lunch.
Personally, I don’t think those things apply to me, and this wouldn’t be a good diet if I needed to lose weight.
But tons of behaviors are genetically based-- a certain pair of alleles may make you a “light breakfast = light lunch” person, whereas for me, light breakfast = low blood sugar shakes at 10, but certain breakfast foods can hold me for a very long time, so that I have to force myself to eat something at lunch time when I’m at work, since the next time to eat is a long way off.
So it has nothing to do with calories taken at a certain time of day, or all together, as opposed to more spread out affecting your metabolism-- it’s just one way of restricting calories that works for a very specific subset of people.
And to be clear, the study that found it did “not work” was comparing isocaloric slightly hypoenergetic conditions. It was just disproving the special metabolic impact bit. It may be that a very large fraction of people are in that subset that it helps decrease amount in. Heck it doesn’t even disprove the chance it does have some special metabolic impact when calories are instead in excess.
The through line consensus of this thread is clear: while the evidence is most solid for a plant forward nutrition plan to managing T2DM every individual has their own approach that will be best for them. Best luck to @Skypist discovering what that best is for them!
Thank you! I’m going to be trying a couple of plant-forward recipes to see how they affect me.
I’m really surprised about the studies on fasting because it makes sense to me that a longer fast would bring down glucose levels and be better metabolically in the long run. But I guess not, it’s just another method of calorie restriction that can work for weight loss if it fits with one’s lifestyle.
In a way it makes me feel better that the “magic” of fasting and/or keto have not actually been demonstrated in studies. It gives me a little more leeway to use some low-carb meals but also plant-based ones and not be stuck with one or the other. It’s easier for me to eat multiple smaller meals or snacks and not have to get that hungry, gnawing feeling.
Then restricted time eating isn’t going to help you. It helps me. I’m less hungry if i just don’t start eating in a day. And it’s a lot easier to “just say no” than to restrict my portions. And when i finally do start eating, I’m a little hungrier, and enjoy my food, but i can eat to satisfaction without eating much more than any other meal.
(I get really cross at studies that show that people who eat low carb or restricted time but eat the same #calories don’t lose more weight. The point isn’t that you don’t process that food, the point is that for many people – not all, but many – a low carb or time restricted diet reduces hunger.)
Anyway, if intermittent fasting makes you too hungry, it’s not a good choice for you.
It sounds like a reduced meat diet would be a good fit for you, because you want to do it for other reasons. Reduced meat doesn’t have to mean tofu or tempe. It can mean beans and lentils and mushrooms and roast sweet potatoes and cauliflower and nuts and lots and lots of greens. It can include a little chicken or fish for variety, too. As someone said upthread, you aren’t being watched by the diet police. You can cut back on animal products without totally eliminating them. And you can also buy meat from humanely-reared animals. It costs a lot more, but if you aren’t eating much of it, maybe you can afford it.
Just don’t use “reduced animal products” as an excuse to eat a lot of white bread, white rice, pasta, and fries. I’ve had vegan chocolate chip cookies, and they weren’t any healthier than the more delicious ones made with eggs and butter.
That is the point to you and you’ve understood that, and for both of them many have believed (and continue to believe), with some reason until more rigorous research demonstrated otherwise, that there were metabolic impacts above and beyond overall calorie reduction. Such is seen in this thread. @Hari_Seldon stating confidently that time restricted has special anti inflammatory impacts, @Common_Tater stating that it is a “metabolic work out” which “forces fat burning”, improves blood pressure, insulin sensitivity, lipids, everything short of filing your taxes seemingly!
Both are also sometimes sold as “do this one simple trick” things: just eat low carb, just restrict to this time window, and otherwise eat however much and whatever you want! That pitch is based on the belief of the above and beyond metabolic impacts and is unlikely to help deliver best health outcomes even if weight is lost.
You make the point in your post in relation to a “reduced meat diet” and it applies to others as well: crap is still crap.
If, for a particular individual, a particular plan results in eating a diet low in hyperprocessed crud, high in fiber containing minimally processed foods, high proportions of healthy fats, low in added sweeteners, and in reasonable amounts, then the particular plan is a good one. A “best” one that an individual ends up not following is not. A plan that consists of fewer calories but crap calories is not.
Fwiw, i wasn’t on a time restricted diet in an attempt to lose weight, i was doing it to rest my inflamed esophagus. And it worked. As measured by reduction in pain and increased ease in swallowing.
Now, stomach acid inflaming the base of the esophagus is a very special form of “inflammation”, and there’s no reason to assume it would generalize to inflammation in the knees, for instance. But my time restricted diet unambiguously reduced the total inflammatory load on my esophagus.
(I ran into troubles because my PCP was trying to reduce how much PPI i was using. The experiment was an abject failure, and sparked a lot of other problems, and after consultation with the gastroenterologist, we’ve agreed that more PPIs is the lesser evil. But time restricted eating gave me a lot of relief while i was going through that, and probably prevented more serious problems.)
TL;DR Different people have different issues, and will react differently to various diets and other lifestyle changes.