Sugars
Options
Replies
-
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
In "DIET, LIFESTYLE, AND THE RISK OF TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS IN WOMEN" consumption of cereal fibers and a healthy balance of fats were both protective.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2453647/
"An increase of three servings/day in total fruit and vegetable consumption was not associated with development of diabetes (multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.94–1.05]), whereas the same increase in whole fruit consumption was associated with a lower hazard of diabetes (0.82 [0.72–0.94]). An increase of 1 serving/day in green leafy vegetable consumption was associated with a modestly lower hazard of diabetes (0.91 [0.84–0.98]), whereas the same change in fruit juice intake was associated with an increased hazard of diabetes (1.18 [1.10–1.26])."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/preventing-diabetes-full-story/#diet
Recommendations based on the nurse's study.
I'm sure if you google diet and type II diabetes risk you will come up with all sorts of recommendations, but it's mostly what everyone already knows. Include low GI, whole grains, whole fruits and veggies, healthier fats etc. Avoid fried foods, and SSBs.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
In "DIET, LIFESTYLE, AND THE RISK OF TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS IN WOMEN" consumption of cereal fibers and a healthy balance of fats were both protective.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2453647/
"An increase of three servings/day in total fruit and vegetable consumption was not associated with development of diabetes (multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.94–1.05]), whereas the same increase in whole fruit consumption was associated with a lower hazard of diabetes (0.82 [0.72–0.94]). An increase of 1 serving/day in green leafy vegetable consumption was associated with a modestly lower hazard of diabetes (0.91 [0.84–0.98]), whereas the same change in fruit juice intake was associated with an increased hazard of diabetes (1.18 [1.10–1.26])."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/preventing-diabetes-full-story/#diet
Recommendations based on the nurse's study.
I'm sure if you google diet and type II diabetes risk you will come up with all sorts of recommendations, but it's mostly what everyone already knows. Include low GI, whole grains, whole fruits and veggies, healthier fats etc. Avoid fried foods, and SSBs.
Or eat them in moderation.
Yes?
What is moderation? I see the word thrown around a lot, in the context of ignoring the advice given by various medical organizations i.e. don't worry about MFP's sugar recommendtions. I can't agree to "eat in moderation" when it comes from people who also say as long as macros are met then everything else will work out. I can't agree to "eat in moderation" with people who say CICO is all that matters. I can agree when "eat in moderation" means eating a healthy diet that includes the recommended servings of food groups, whole foods, plus some treats with discretionary calories.0 -
It's as if those 2 members don't understand what caloric deficit means? How are we going to accumulate visceral fat in a caloric deficit?
The visceral fat data was in regards to type II diabetes risk. The assertion was made that specific diet items do not impact diabetic risk (you don't get diabetes from sugar). An argument was presented that high GI foods (ie. sugar, processed carbs, and overall high carb intake) can increase risk of type II diabetes. Evidence was presented of specific food intake that predicted type II diabetes. SSBs have been shown to cause visceral fat and insulin resistance in short term intervention studies, and be associated with visceral fat and diabetes in cohort studies. Visceral fat also predicts type II diabetes.
The argument isn't about what would cause diabetes during a calorie deficit, just whether or not diabetes risk is impacted by specific foods, as opposed to a surplus diet in general (resulting in the recognized obesity risk).
Hopefully, a caloric deficit would reduce risk of diabetes in overweight/obese individuals due to weight loss. In T2D bariatric patients, weight loss often results in significant improvements in insulin sensitivity, even if the patient remains obese.
In a longitudinal study on lifestyle predictors of type II diabetes in individuals eating at deficit, however, exercise and having a healthy diet would likely be negatively associated with emergence of type II diabetes, just as it was in the nurses' study for healthy-weight individuals (eating at maintenance).
Someone eating in a calorie deficit may already have visceral fat, btw.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
In "DIET, LIFESTYLE, AND THE RISK OF TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS IN WOMEN" consumption of cereal fibers and a healthy balance of fats were both protective.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2453647/
"An increase of three servings/day in total fruit and vegetable consumption was not associated with development of diabetes (multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.94–1.05]), whereas the same increase in whole fruit consumption was associated with a lower hazard of diabetes (0.82 [0.72–0.94]). An increase of 1 serving/day in green leafy vegetable consumption was associated with a modestly lower hazard of diabetes (0.91 [0.84–0.98]), whereas the same change in fruit juice intake was associated with an increased hazard of diabetes (1.18 [1.10–1.26])."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/preventing-diabetes-full-story/#diet
Recommendations based on the nurse's study.
I'm sure if you google diet and type II diabetes risk you will come up with all sorts of recommendations, but it's mostly what everyone already knows. Include low GI, whole grains, whole fruits and veggies, healthier fats etc. Avoid fried foods, and SSBs.
Or eat them in moderation.
Yes?
What is moderation? I see the word thrown around a lot, in the context of ignoring the advice given by various medical organizations i.e. don't worry about MFP's sugar recommendtions. I can't agree to "eat in moderation" when it comes from people who also say as long as macros are met than everything else will work out. I can't agree to "eat in moderation" with people who say CICO is all that matters. I can agree when "eat in moderation" means eating a healthy diet that includes the recommended servings of food groups, whole foods, plus some treats with discretionary calories.
Moderation means 'not excessive', so within dietary guidelines by mass for calorie intake, blood volume for glucose level, and nutritional profile as recommended by reputable health organisations - not the general advice, the numbers.
You do know what these are for, say, a 60kg woman and a 90kg man, yes?
'Fraid I would have to look them up, as I am neither....I'm a little worried about recommended "blood volume for glucose level" - are we feeding vampires? I'm aware of the WHO recommendation for added sugars, but I personally would be little more lenient when there is discretionary calories. I would say 1-2 servings of fruit for myself, and up to 2 1/2 for an active young man, 3-4 servings of vegetables and 2-3 servings of dairy for both, and a minimum of 3 for me and 4 for him grain servings up to what is limited by calories for each, after protein and fat is included, and that should cover blood glucose. I don't think eating enough protein that it is converted to glucose is a good idea outside of carb-limited dieting. Again, going with whole foods when possible.
Um, calories for 60kg woman - are we talking sedentary? 1621 if over 31. Male is under 31 and active, 3024? Minimum 3 servings protein for him, two for me. 55-119 g fat for him, 36-63 grams for the lady, just over 1g minimum omega3s/day for each. 27 g fiber for her, 45 for him.
And then it gets complicated....Was there a point to your question (other than older, less- active, smaller women have very different nutritional needs than younger, active men?)
edited because I am losing the ability to spell....0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
In "DIET, LIFESTYLE, AND THE RISK OF TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS IN WOMEN" consumption of cereal fibers and a healthy balance of fats were both protective.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2453647/
"An increase of three servings/day in total fruit and vegetable consumption was not associated with development of diabetes (multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.94–1.05]), whereas the same increase in whole fruit consumption was associated with a lower hazard of diabetes (0.82 [0.72–0.94]). An increase of 1 serving/day in green leafy vegetable consumption was associated with a modestly lower hazard of diabetes (0.91 [0.84–0.98]), whereas the same change in fruit juice intake was associated with an increased hazard of diabetes (1.18 [1.10–1.26])."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/preventing-diabetes-full-story/#diet
Recommendations based on the nurse's study.
I'm sure if you google diet and type II diabetes risk you will come up with all sorts of recommendations, but it's mostly what everyone already knows. Include low GI, whole grains, whole fruits and veggies, healthier fats etc. Avoid fried foods, and SSBs.
Or eat them in moderation.
Yes?
What is moderation? I see the word thrown around a lot, in the context of ignoring the advice given by various medical organizations i.e. don't worry about MFP's sugar recommendtions. I can't agree to "eat in moderation" when it comes from people who also say as long as macros are met than everything else will work out. I can't agree to "eat in moderation" with people who say CICO is all that matters. I can agree when "eat in moderation" means eating a healthy diet that includes the recommended servings of food groups, whole foods, plus some treats with discretionary calories.
Moderation means 'not excessive', so within dietary guidelines by mass for calorie intake, blood volume for glucose level, and nutritional profile as recommended by reputable health organisations - not the general advice, the numbers.
You do know what these are for, say, a 60kg woman and a 90kg man, yes?
'Fraid I would have to look them up, as I am neither....I'm a little worried about recommended "blood volume for glucose level" - are we feeding vampires? I'm aware of the WHO recommendation for added sugars, but I personally would be little more lenient when there is discretionary calories. I would say 1-2 servings of fruit for myself, and up to 2 1/2 for an active young man, 3-4 servings of vegetables and 2-3 servings of dairy for both, and a minimum of 3 for me and 4 for him grain servings up to what is limited by calories for each, after protein and fat is included, and that should cover blood glucose. I don't think eating enough protein that it is converted to glucose is a good idea outside of carb-limited dieting. Again, going with whole foods when possible.
Um, calories for 60kg woman - are we talking sedentary? 1621 if over 31. Male is under 31 and active, 3024? Minimum 3 servings protein for him, two for me. 55-119 g fat for him, 36-63 grams for the lady, just over 1g minimum omega3s/day for each. 27 g fiber for her, 45 for him.
And then it gets complicated....Was there a point to your question (other than older, less- active, smaller women have very different nutritional needs than younger, active men?)
edited because I am losing the ability to spell....
So you don't actually know what an acceptable blood sugar content is by volume, but feel you're qualified to offer advice on what is and isn't moderate?
I think I'll pass.
I know that blood sugar should be between 3.9 and 5.5 mmol/L (70 to 100 mg/dL) when fasting for non-diabetics, but not about blood volume for glucose level (your question).
My advice isn`t on what is moderate, it is my understanding of what is recommended.0 -
How about eat your fruit rather than drink it, and stay away from sodas and etc. based on the precautionary principle as applied to your own life? Lots of people on MFP who don't give a damn about avoiding sugar refuse to drink their treat calories because it's much more satiating to eat them anyway. Up to you, of course, I'm not the cola police. I just want subsidies shifted away from crap and toward fruit and veg.0
-
We can't just point at one thing as the cause of visceral fat. Genetics will play a role in visceral fat accumulation but diet, metabolic disorders, diseases, hormonal imbalances etc will also be important factors.mamapeach910 wrote: »It's as if those 2 members don't understand what caloric deficit means? How are we going to accumulate visceral fat in a caloric deficit?
This is a serious question about visceral fat. Isn't that pretty much genetic?
I drank soda for years. Never had a belly. I don't really have much of one now either, just the remnants of having a kid at 40. I'm a natural hourglass shape with a small waist.
Significant visceral fat tends to accumulate more in men, but is associated with higher risk when present in women. In the absence of CT, waist-hip ratios (greater than 8 for women, 9 for men), or waist size (over 35" for women, 40" for men) are shortcuts to get an approximate idea of if there is enough visceral fat to be concerned.0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".0 -
How about eat your fruit rather than drink it, and stay away from sodas and etc. based on the precautionary principle as applied to your own life? Lots of people on MFP who don't give a damn about avoiding sugar refuse to drink their treat calories because it's much more satiating to eat them anyway.
As what? Common sense advice or "this is something I do that might be helpful"? Sure, absolutely. I don't stay away from soda on a precautionary principle, but because they seem like ridiculous wastes of calories and aren't even, IMO, very good. (I'm skeptical about how many people really want to cut out all sources of risk in their lives anyway--what people choose to focus on can be really interesting. Moreover, it's possible to monitor risk without going to such lengths--for example, I know I don't have overmuch visceral fat, so I'm not super stressed about it.)
However, my concern would be making the advice into some kind of one size fits all recommendation. Say someone really enjoys smoothies or even (much as it makes me roll my eyes) refuses to eat fruits and veggies other than in juice form. Might those be exceptions to the don't drink calories rule? Say someone finds a cola just as satiating as I might find a bowl of ice cream or you might find equivalent calories of steak. I don't, I'm sure, but some could. Say the same person prefers soda to any other kind of sweet and likes it as a dessert on occasion. Seems weird to me, but might that be a perfectly reasonable reason to keep soda in the diet? I think so.
On the whole, I think sugary sodas are calories that most consume without really noticing and thus tend to drink way too much of, and I tend to prefer how I recall things being back in the day (when kids weren't on my lawn) when as kids we'd have maybe a soda as a special treat when going to McD's once a month and not as a regular beverage with dinner or whenever kids drink them now. I don't think overconsumption of sugary sodas is a great habit to develop. But this idea that that means that the only option is that we must declare all consumption of them terrible and unhealthy and a plague seems a bit ridiculous and missing the big picture, which is that people should eat a good overall diet (and be active).0 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »How about eat your fruit rather than drink it, and stay away from sodas and etc. based on the precautionary principle as applied to your own life? Lots of people on MFP who don't give a damn about avoiding sugar refuse to drink their treat calories because it's much more satiating to eat them anyway.
As what? Common sense advice or "this is something I do that might be helpful"? Sure, absolutely. I don't stay away from soda on a precautionary principle, but because they seem like ridiculous wastes of calories and aren't even, IMO, very good. (I'm skeptical about how many people really want to cut out all sources of risk in their lives anyway--what people choose to focus on can be really interesting. Moreover, it's possible to monitor risk without going to such lengths--for example, I know I don't have overmuch visceral fat, so I'm not super stressed about it.)
However, my concern would be making the advice into some kind of one size fits all recommendation. Say someone really enjoys smoothies or even (much as it makes me roll my eyes) refuses to eat fruits and veggies other than in juice form. Might those be exceptions to the don't drink calories rule? Say someone finds a cola just as satiating as I might find a bowl of ice cream or you might find equivalent calories of steak. I don't, I'm sure, but some could. Say the same person prefers soda to any other kind of sweet and likes it as a dessert on occasion. Seems weird to me, but might that be a perfectly reasonable reason to keep soda in the diet? I think so.
On the whole, I think sugary sodas are calories that most consume without really noticing and thus tend to drink way too much of, and I tend to prefer how I recall things being back in the day (when kids weren't on my lawn) when as kids we'd have maybe a soda as a special treat when going to McD's once a month and not as a regular beverage with dinner or whenever kids drink them now. I don't think overconsumption of sugary sodas is a great habit to develop. But this idea that that means that the only option is that we must declare all consumption of them terrible and unhealthy and a plague seems a bit ridiculous and missing the big picture, which is that people should eat a good overall diet (and be active).
Can't you blend smoothies in a way that won't destroy all the fiber? If so, someone who won't eat fruit and veg any other way should most definitely try that. I am not one size fits all anyway, I said I'm not the cola police. For me, I'm definitely not going to drink my calories. I know where that road leads, and it's not pretty. I also tried very healthy and very delicious smoothies and found even when I added nuts and seeds for protein and fat I was ravenous later. Yet some people swear by them. One size does not fit all.
This does not mean we should rip into anyone who posts research showing regular consumption of calories from sweet beverages in particular might be harmful to large numbers of people.0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.
Yeah, my mom is diabetic, so I definitely understand. I'm mostly concerned with weight loss to mitigate potential risks. I also have reactive hypoglycemia, but my body also seems to respond strangely to carbs. What ends up working for me is semi-low carb (not really all that low), and I focus on getting proteins and fat early in the day and consume most of my carbs at night.
Luckily, it was easy for me to find what works because I had a direct symptom; I'd get shaky if I wasn't doing something my body liked. If you're just trying to prevent diabetes, there is no clear indicator if what you're doing is working or not. You may want to somewhat reduce carbs or sugars, but there is no need to exclude them entirely if you're able to incorporate them into your diet in moderation. I'd also recommend consistent annual physicals and/or bloodwork to make sure your A1C is at an appropriate level.0 -
As always, what is your point. It's as if you believe what your post said is somehow contradicting my posts. Like I said before, I'm not bothering addressing you anymore because it's boring to debate someone that only knows how to cut and paste from Google.
We can't just point at one thing as the cause of visceral fat. Genetics will play a role in visceral fat accumulation but diet, metabolic disorders, diseases, hormonal imbalances etc will also be important factors.mamapeach910 wrote: »It's as if those 2 members don't understand what caloric deficit means? How are we going to accumulate visceral fat in a caloric deficit?
This is a serious question about visceral fat. Isn't that pretty much genetic?
I drank soda for years. Never had a belly. I don't really have much of one now either, just the remnants of having a kid at 40. I'm a natural hourglass shape with a small waist.
Significant visceral fat tends to accumulate more in men, but is associated with higher risk when present in women. In the absence of CT, waist-hip ratios (greater than 8 for women, 9 for men), or waist size (over 35" for women, 40" for men) are shortcuts to get an approximate idea of if there is enough visceral fat to be concerned.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post to say (again) that you will not respond to my posts (a case of last word-itis?)
My point is that you can have an hourglass shape, but still have an waist hip ratio, or waist size that indicates a higher level of visceral fat. Also, that women tend to deposit fat more in their lower body than men do - a hormonal difference in fat distribution, which is also affected by life events. Pregnancy can cause new fat cells to develop, fat cells developped after adulthood tend to develop in the lower body, so some women will end up with more fat cells in their lower body. So women, in general, would have less visceral fat at a given body fat %, but when they do, the associated level of risk is higher. I also gave some approximate measures that would give readers an idea of their personal risk level, if anyone was wondering.-1 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.
Well, since genetics is the top listed factor for development of diabetes and it runs in your family, if I were you, I'd try to lessen the ones I could like low activity levels and being overweight, but also understand that it isn't worth driving myself crazy over because it might be out of my control.
Basically, do whatever you think you need to do for your own sanity.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 981 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions