People with obesity commonly face a pervasive, resilient form of social stigma. They are often subject to discrimination in the workplace as well as in educational and healthcare settings. Research indicates that weight stigma can cause physical and psychological harm, and that affected individuals are less likely to receive adequate care. For these reasons, weight stigma damages health, undermines human and social rights, and is unacceptable in modern societies. To inform healthcare professionals, policymakers, and the public about this issue, a multidisciplinary group of international experts, including representatives of scientific organizations, reviewed available evidence on the causes and harms of weight stigma and, using a modified Delphi process, developed a joint consensus statement with recommendations to eliminate weight bias. Academic institutions, professional organizations, media, public-health authorities, and governments should encourage education about weight stigma to facilitate a new public narrative about obesity, coherent with modern scientific knowledge.

A summary of the latest evidence-based nutrition guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes is presented. These guidelines are based on existing recommendations last published in 2011, and were formulated by an expert panel of specialist dietitians after a literature review of recent evidence. Recommendations have been made in terms of foods rather than nutrients wherever possible. Guidelines for education and care delivery, prevention of Type 2 diabetes, glycaemic control for Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease risk management, management of diabetes-related complications, other considerations including comorbidities, nutrition support, pregnancy and lactation, eating disorders, micronutrients, food supplements, functional foods, commercial diabetic foods and nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners are included. The sections on pregnancy and prevention of Type 2 diabetes have been enlarged and the weight management section modified to include considerations of remission of Type 2 diabetes. A section evaluating detailed considerations in ethnic minorities has been included as a new topic. The guidelines were graded using adapted 'GRADE' methodology and, where strong evidence was lacking, grading was not allocated. These 2018 guidelines emphasize a flexible, individualized approach to diabetes management and weight loss and highlight the emerging evidence for remission of Type 2 diabetes. The full guideline document is available at www.diabetes.org.uk/nutrition-guidelines.

A consensus report of a particular topic contains a comprehensive examination and is authored by an expert panel (i.e., consensus panel) and represents the panel's collective analysis, evaluation, and opinion. The need for a consensus report arises when clinicians, scientists, regulators, and/ CONSENSUS REPORTDiabetes Care 1

A consensus report of a particular topic contains a comprehensive examination and is authored by an expert panel (i.e., consensus panel) and represents the panel's collective analysis, evaluation, and opinion. The need for a consensus report arises when clinicians, scientists, regulators, and/or policy makers desire guidance and/or clarity on a medical or scientific issue related to diabetes for which the evidence is contradictory, emerging, or incomplete. Consensus reports may also highlight gaps in evidence and propose areas of future research to address these gaps. A consensus report is not an American Diabetes Association (ADA) position but represents expert opinion only and is produced under the auspices of the ADA by invited experts. A consensus report may be developed after an ADA Clinical Conference or Research Symposium.

Improvement of glucose levels into the normal range can occur in some people living with diabetes, either spontaneously or after medical interventions, and in some cases can persist after withdrawal of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy. Such sustained improvement may now be occurring more often due to newer forms of treatment. However, terminology for describing this process and objective measures for defining it are not well established, and the long-term risks vs benefits of its attainment are not well understood. To update prior discussions of this issue, an international expert group was convened by the American Diabetes Association to propose nomenclature and principles for data collection and analysis, with the goal of establishing a base of information to support future clinical guidance. This group proposed 'remission' as the most appropriate descriptive term, and HbA 1c <48 mmol/mol (6.5%) measured at least 3 months after cessation of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy as the usual diagnostic criterion. The group also made suggestions for active observation of individuals experiencing a remission and discussed further questions and unmet needs regarding predictors and outcomes of remission. This Consensus Report is jointly published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society; Diabetologia, published by Springer-Verlag, GmbH, on behalf of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes; Diabetic Medicine, published by Wiley on behalf of Diabetes UK; and Diabetes Care, published by the American Diabetes Association.A consensus report of a particular topic contains a comprehensive examination and is authored by an expert panel and represents the panel's collective analysis, evaluation and opinion. The article was reviewed for EASD by its Committee on Clinical Affairs.

Improvement of glucose levels into the normal range can occur in some people living with diabetes, either spontaneously or after medical interventions, and in some cases can persist after withdrawal of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy. Such sustained improvement may now be occurring more often due to newer forms of treatment. However, terminology for describing this process and objective measures for defining it are not well established, and the long-term risks versus benefits of its attainment are not well understood. To update prior discussions of this issue, an international expert group was convened by the American Diabetes Association to propose nomenclature and principles for data collection and analysis, with the goal of establishing a base of information to support future clinical guidance. This group proposed “remission” as the most appropriate descriptive term, and HbA1c &lt; 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) measured at least 3 months after cessation of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy as the usual diagnostic criterion. The group also made suggestions for active observation of individuals experiencing a remission and discussed further questions and unmet needs regarding predictors and outcomes of remission.

No abstract

Background In May 2021, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) published a risk assessment on lower carbohydrate diets for adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D)(1). The purpose of the report was to review the evidence on ‘low’-carbohydrate diets compared with the current UK government advice on carbohydrate intake for adults with T2D. However, since there is no agreed and widely utilised definition of a ‘low’-carbohydrate diet, comparisons in the report were between lower and higher carbohydrate diets. SACN’s remit is to assess the risks and benefits of nutrients, dietary patterns, food or food components for health by evaluating scientific evidence and to make dietary recommendations for the UK based on its assessment(2). SACN has a public health focus and only considers evidence in healthy populations unless specifically requested to do otherwise. Since the Committee does not usually make recommendations relating to clinical conditions, a joint working group (WG) was established in 2017 to consider this issue. The WG comprised members of SACN and members nominated by Diabetes UK, the British Dietetic Association, Royal College of Physicians and Royal College of General Practitioners. Representatives from NHS England and NHS Health Improvement, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and devolved health departments were also invited to observe the WG. The WG was jointly chaired by SACN and Diabetes UK.