carbs

Options
1235»

Replies

  • umayster
    umayster Posts: 651 Member
    Options
    senecarr wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Orphia wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Around half of all people have some sort of insulin resistance. For those people, higher amounts of carbs can be a bad thing. I find they hurt my health and make it easier to gain weight.

    For the other half of the population, carbs don't appear to hurt their health.

    Half? Pretty sure you haven't proven that claim.

    OP, carbs are fine, unless your doctor tells you otherwise. Best wishes.

    Nope, haven't proven it. It was an estimation. Insulin resistance would include prediabetes, T2D, PCOS, NAFLD, and some dementia. I'm guessing that is about half, probably largely the older half, but around half.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/half-of-us-adults-have-diabetes-or-high-risk-prediabetes/

    If anything, you probably estimated too low! 52% have diabetes or prediabetes. And that does not even include those with PCOS or other conditions.

    More than half the population has a very significant reason to reduce carbs.

    The numbers are based on changes made to diagnosing pre-diabetes. I've listened to one specialist on it remark that the new criteria are poor because they're now using A1C to determine pre-diabetes and while there is evidence for A1C scores diagnosing diabetes, there is no strong evidence that the scores they're using actually predict someone being close to diabetes. As he stated, the only strong predictor of diabetes, enough in his opinion to warrant the term pre-diabetic, is a glucose challenge, but no one wants to do glucose challenges because they require hours of testing. So instead the recommendation has become A1C that is just a once, quick blood draw.

    I read something in the past week about a researcher doing glucose challenge but measuring abnormal insulin response and his testing yielding an even higher number of diabetics than the older standards you are dismissing. Scary stuff on the quantity of folks out there who are unable to eat high levels of carbs without damaging their long term health!

    It would be interesting to see that research. I'd imagine it has issues with the population selected. Generally speaking, if someone isn't yet obese or has other confounds or concerns, the typical physician's office's reply to glucose challenge requests is "ain't nobody got time for 'dat."

    I'm just beginning to explore it

    Overview http://denversdietdoctor.com/diabetes-vascular-disease-joseph-r-kraft-md/

    Blog post - http://thelowcarbdiabetic.blogspot.com/2015/09/kraft-father-of-insulin-assay.html

    He has a book & there is a PDF I found and lost!
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    umayster wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    umayster wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Orphia wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Around half of all people have some sort of insulin resistance. For those people, higher amounts of carbs can be a bad thing. I find they hurt my health and make it easier to gain weight.

    For the other half of the population, carbs don't appear to hurt their health.

    Half? Pretty sure you haven't proven that claim.

    OP, carbs are fine, unless your doctor tells you otherwise. Best wishes.

    Nope, haven't proven it. It was an estimation. Insulin resistance would include prediabetes, T2D, PCOS, NAFLD, and some dementia. I'm guessing that is about half, probably largely the older half, but around half.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/half-of-us-adults-have-diabetes-or-high-risk-prediabetes/

    If anything, you probably estimated too low! 52% have diabetes or prediabetes. And that does not even include those with PCOS or other conditions.

    More than half the population has a very significant reason to reduce carbs.

    The numbers are based on changes made to diagnosing pre-diabetes. I've listened to one specialist on it remark that the new criteria are poor because they're now using A1C to determine pre-diabetes and while there is evidence for A1C scores diagnosing diabetes, there is no strong evidence that the scores they're using actually predict someone being close to diabetes. As he stated, the only strong predictor of diabetes, enough in his opinion to warrant the term pre-diabetic, is a glucose challenge, but no one wants to do glucose challenges because they require hours of testing. So instead the recommendation has become A1C that is just a once, quick blood draw.

    I read something in the past week about a researcher doing glucose challenge but measuring abnormal insulin response and his testing yielding an even higher number of diabetics than the older standards you are dismissing. Scary stuff on the quantity of folks out there who are unable to eat high levels of carbs without damaging their long term health!

    It would be interesting to see that research. I'd imagine it has issues with the population selected. Generally speaking, if someone isn't yet obese or has other confounds or concerns, the typical physician's office's reply to glucose challenge requests is "ain't nobody got time for 'dat."

    I'm just beginning to explore it

    Overview http://denversdietdoctor.com/diabetes-vascular-disease-joseph-r-kraft-md/

    Blog post - http://thelowcarbdiabetic.blogspot.com/2015/09/kraft-father-of-insulin-assay.html

    He has a book & there is a PDF I found and lost!
    Looking through the overview, it looks interesting, he seems to do an insulin challenge instead of a traditional glucose challenge and feels it could better predict diabetes. Admittedly, doing an insulin challenge is probably even more difficult than a glucose challenge as I believe detecting insulin still requires outside lab measurements compare to simple handheld devices to get measurements.
    That said
    Kraft discovered that 83% of the subjects (not intended to represent the general population by design) failed his test thus meeting criteria for hyperinsulinemia (diabetes “in-situ”) based on the insulin assay.
    it seems he is looking specifically at populations that are atypical when he is saying his method may be a better predictor.
    I will have to give that a deeper look at some point because while I'm leery of thinking of cardiovascular disease as strongly a diabetic phenomena, his view of inflammation as the primary issue and LDL as secondary characteristic of that inflammation is consistent with some of the newer views on cardiovascular disease out there.

Categories