Are We Fighting the Wrong Battle in the Obesity War?
Options
Replies
-
Perhaps, like breast cancer, certain genetic lines are more susceptible to type II than others. Perhaps, if members from those same genetic lines allow themselves to become overweight or obese, they increase that risk of developing the disease to an even greater degree.
This does not change the fact that weight gain, certain metabolic issues aside, is caused my an over consumption of calories regardless of the source of those calories.
I'm guessing the good surgeon has a family history of diabetes and his unfortunate genetics are more to blame (if not solely) for his current medical condition. If he'd been overweight he probably would have developed it sooner.
I think what he is challenging is the conventional medical "wisdom" that obesity causes Type II. He cited the fact that there are a number of people who are of normal weight and are still insulin resistant. He feels that insulin resistance causes both obesity and Type II--that obesity is actually the "healthier" response to "hyperglycemia". At just 40 pounds overweight, he probably was not obese (he seems fairly tall). He might have been "over-fat" but he believes that both conditions were caused by an unwise diet that emphasized carbohydrates (the former "food pyramid" calls for 6 servings of bread or other grain products---waaay too many carbohydrates for the average adult). Sugary foods are the other source of hyperglycemia. The average person eats approximately 500 calories in sugar every day. Dr. Attia said that he also exercised 3 to 4 hours per day--and all the while, he was gaining weight and developing insulin resistance. When he changed his diet, he lost the body fat and the insulin resistance. Just because obesity is correlated with Type II does not mean that it causes Type II. Correlation does not equal causation.
He's using himself as an anecdotal case so I'll use my mom as an anecdotal rebuttal. She was overweight, less so than him by a 20 pounds, and developed insulin resistance and was called pre diabetic. She didn't change her diet in terms of composition, she changed it in terms of quantity. She lost the weight and she is no longer insulin resistant or pre diabetic. She gained weight, not because of hyperglycemia (she didn't have it until the resistance started) but because she ate at a calorie surplus.
I'll consider your hypothesis when there's been a large scale, long term study done on it. Until then, it's all just anecdotal (the surgeon and my mom). Just because this guy has a hypothesis that coincides with your personal views on food, does not make it anything more than an untested, unreviewed hypothesis.
And just to clarify, at 40 pounds overweight, I was clinically obese. The surgeon probably was too.
Once you become prediabetic, you are always prediabetic. All you can do is manage your condition in keeping your glucose levels low. You can never again eat carbs without seeing a postmeal spike above 140.
Weird, since my mom still tests her blood sugar several times a day and no longer gets the spikes. I guess the saying "never use absolutes" applies here.
That's because your mom isn't eating cake, donuts, icecream, or candy. A truly normal person can eat those foods and never see a spike above 140 glucose. Give your mom cake and do a postmeal test exactly like they do at the doctors office and you will see a spike above 140, guarantee. Postmeal spikes should be tested every 30 mins after the first bite for 2 hours in order to find the highest spike.
I stated in the post that she changed only the quantity of her foods, not the composition. When I last visited, she tested her blood levels after having a pasta meal at Olive Garden and a shared (three ways) apple carmel desert topped with vanilla ice cream.
I'd never heard that you could NEVER reverse the pre diabetic state and after reading your post I wanted to know if my mother was a special snowflake. It turns out she's not.
From: http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/insulinresistance/
"Can insulin resistance and prediabetes be reversed?
Yes. Physical activity and weight loss help the body respond better to insulin. The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) was a federally funded study of 3,234 people at high risk for diabetes.
The DPP and other large studies proved that people with prediabetes can often prevent or delay diabetes if they lose a modest amount of weight by cutting fat and calorie intake and increasing physical activity—for example, walking 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week."
It goes more in depth but I didn't want to do a huge copy pasta.0 -
Good info. Thanks for posting. My takeaway is, that like most things, this is a complex issue, with more than one simple answer.
Also, curious how he gained 40 lbs. following the food pyramid "to a t", and working out 4-5 hours EVERY DAY.0 -
I stated in the post that she changed only the quantity of her foods, not the composition. When I last visited, she tested her blood levels after having a pasta meal at Olive Garden and a shared (three ways) apple carmel desert topped with vanilla ice cream.
I'd never heard that you could NEVER reverse the pre diabetic state and after reading your post I wanted to know if my mother was a special snowflake. It turns out she's not.
From: http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/insulinresistance/
"Can insulin resistance and prediabetes be reversed?
Yes. Physical activity and weight loss help the body respond better to insulin. The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) was a federally funded study of 3,234 people at high risk for diabetes.
The DPP and other large studies proved that people with prediabetes can often prevent or delay diabetes if they lose a modest amount of weight by cutting fat and calorie intake and increasing physical activity—for example, walking 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week."
It goes more in depth but I didn't want to do a huge copy pasta.
Thanks for the link but I already know what it says but there is some misconceptions into the wording and the way some people understand it. It is possible for a prediabetic to manage their glucose levels to look like a normal person and that's what they mean by reversible, but what damage has already occurred in the body due to the prediabetic conditions will always be there. Any prediabetic who tests after 2 hours of eating will easily be under 140 glucose because their Phase 2 Insulin response is working perfectly fine but not Phase 1 Insulin Response. Prediabetics no longer have a Phase 1 Insulin Response and if your mom would test 30 mins after eating that icecream and pasta, she will see spikes above 140. Testing every 30 mins after the first bite of a meal is how they do a postmeal glucose test at the doctors office and the brochure you get in the mail that says you can still eat carbs as long as you test 2 hours after eating, has a lot to do with politics.0 -
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hyperinsulinemia/HQ00896
Just to add that this is a complicated issue with many diversions as to the why and then the proper course of managing the problem.
There are so many different possible reasons for increased blood glucose...0 -
I heard somebody mention this the other day. I think this is a very interesting line of study and I like that somebody is looking at things a different way. We'll see what the studies show...He asks the question, "What if becoming obese is the better option that the body pursues rather than succumbing to Type II diabetes?"
It's kind of the same with heart disease/cholesterol/high blood pressure, etc.. People generally link them with overweight/obesity, but there are tons of people with terrible cholesterol who are thin, and people overweight with great numbers. Same as blood pressure. There are some linkages, and there is some element of genetics (a huge piece, imo), but there is also WHAT you eat (not just how much) and exercise - although if you exercise too much (marathoners) that can go in the other direction.I think what he is challenging is the conventional medical "wisdom" that obesity causes Type II. He cited the fact that there are a number of people who are of normal weight and are still insulin resistant0 -
Perhaps, like breast cancer, certain genetic lines are more susceptible to type II than others. Perhaps, if members from those same genetic lines allow themselves to become overweight or obese, they increase that risk of developing the disease to an even greater degree.
This does not change the fact that weight gain, certain metabolic issues aside, is caused my an over consumption of calories regardless of the source of those calories.
I'm guessing the good surgeon has a family history of diabetes and his unfortunate genetics are more to blame (if not solely) for his current medical condition. If he'd been overweight he probably would have developed it sooner.
I think what he is challenging is the conventional medical "wisdom" that obesity causes Type II. He cited the fact that there are a number of people who are of normal weight and are still insulin resistant. He feels that insulin resistance causes both obesity and Type II--that obesity is actually the "healthier" response to "hyperglycemia". At just 40 pounds overweight, he probably was not obese (he seems fairly tall). He might have been "over-fat" but he believes that both conditions were caused by an unwise diet that emphasized carbohydrates (the former "food pyramid" calls for 6 servings of bread or other grain products---waaay too many carbohydrates for the average adult). Sugary foods are the other source of hyperglycemia. The average person eats approximately 500 calories in sugar every day. Dr. Attia said that he also exercised 3 to 4 hours per day--and all the while, he was gaining weight and developing insulin resistance. When he changed his diet, he lost the body fat and the insulin resistance. Just because obesity is correlated with Type II does not mean that it causes Type II. Correlation does not equal causation.
He's using himself as an anecdotal case so I'll use my mom as an anecdotal rebuttal. She was overweight, less so than him by a 20 pounds, and developed insulin resistance and was called pre diabetic. She didn't change her diet in terms of composition, she changed it in terms of quantity. She lost the weight and she is no longer insulin resistant or pre diabetic. She gained weight, not because of hyperglycemia (she didn't have it until the resistance started) but because she ate at a calorie surplus.
I'll consider your hypothesis when there's been a large scale, long term study done on it. Until then, it's all just anecdotal (the surgeon and my mom). Just because this guy has a hypothesis that coincides with your personal views on food, does not make it anything more than an untested, unreviewed hypothesis.
And just to clarify, at 40 pounds overweight, I was clinically obese. The surgeon probably was too.
Once you become prediabetic, you are always prediabetic. All you can do is manage your condition in keeping your glucose levels low. You can never again eat carbs without seeing a postmeal spike above 140.
Interesting. I notice that when I have a particularly "carby" meal (and I don't eat a lot of them) that I start to get sleepy, shortly after---no matter how well-rested I am--unless I make a point of walking for at least 15 minutes after the meal. When I was diagnosed as having "metabolic syndrome" a little over three years ago, I became determined to "reverse" it. And even though I am no longer running high B.P. or high blood glucose, I have no doubt that I would be right back where I started (or worse) if I went back to eating the high grain/carb diet recommended by our government. :grumble:0 -
Perhaps, like breast cancer, certain genetic lines are more susceptible to type II than others. Perhaps, if members from those same genetic lines allow themselves to become overweight or obese, they increase that risk of developing the disease to an even greater degree.
This does not change the fact that weight gain, certain metabolic issues aside, is caused my an over consumption of calories regardless of the source of those calories.
I'm guessing the good surgeon has a family history of diabetes and his unfortunate genetics are more to blame (if not solely) for his current medical condition. If he'd been overweight he probably would have developed it sooner.
I think what he is challenging is the conventional medical "wisdom" that obesity causes Type II. He cited the fact that there are a number of people who are of normal weight and are still insulin resistant. He feels that insulin resistance causes both obesity and Type II--that obesity is actually the "healthier" response to "hyperglycemia". At just 40 pounds overweight, he probably was not obese (he seems fairly tall). He might have been "over-fat" but he believes that both conditions were caused by an unwise diet that emphasized carbohydrates (the former "food pyramid" calls for 6 servings of bread or other grain products---waaay too many carbohydrates for the average adult). Sugary foods are the other source of hyperglycemia. The average person eats approximately 500 calories in sugar every day. Dr. Attia said that he also exercised 3 to 4 hours per day--and all the while, he was gaining weight and developing insulin resistance. When he changed his diet, he lost the body fat and the insulin resistance. Just because obesity is correlated with Type II does not mean that it causes Type II. Correlation does not equal causation.
He's using himself as an anecdotal case so I'll use my mom as an anecdotal rebuttal. She was overweight, less so than him by a 20 pounds, and developed insulin resistance and was called pre diabetic. She didn't change her diet in terms of composition, she changed it in terms of quantity. She lost the weight and she is no longer insulin resistant or pre diabetic. She gained weight, not because of hyperglycemia (she didn't have it until the resistance started) but because she ate at a calorie surplus.
I'll consider your hypothesis when there's been a large scale, long term study done on it. Until then, it's all just anecdotal (the surgeon and my mom). Just because this guy has a hypothesis that coincides with your personal views on food, does not make it anything more than an untested, unreviewed hypothesis.
And just to clarify, at 40 pounds overweight, I was clinically obese. The surgeon probably was too.
Once you become prediabetic, you are always prediabetic. All you can do is manage your condition in keeping your glucose levels low. You can never again eat carbs without seeing a postmeal spike above 140.
Weird, since my mom still tests her blood sugar several times a day and no longer gets the spikes. I guess the saying "never use absolutes" applies here.
That's because your mom isn't eating cake, donuts, icecream, or candy. A truly normal person can eat those foods and never see a spike above 140 glucose. Give your mom cake and do a postmeal test exactly like they do at the doctors office and you will see a spike above 140, guarantee. Postmeal spikes should be tested every 30 mins after the first bite for 2 hours in order to find the highest spike.
I stated in the post that she changed only the quantity of her foods, not the composition. When I last visited, she tested her blood levels after having a pasta meal at Olive Garden and a shared (three ways) apple carmel desert topped with vanilla ice cream.
I'd never heard that you could NEVER reverse the pre diabetic state and after reading your post I wanted to know if my mother was a special snowflake. It turns out she's not.
From: http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/insulinresistance/
"Can insulin resistance and prediabetes be reversed?
Yes. Physical activity and weight loss help the body respond better to insulin. The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) was a federally funded study of 3,234 people at high risk for diabetes.
The DPP and other large studies proved that people with prediabetes can often prevent or delay diabetes if they lose a modest amount of weight by cutting fat and calorie intake and increasing physical activity—for example, walking 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week."
It goes more in depth but I didn't want to do a huge copy pasta.
The only thing is, that is government propaganda (they are still pushing the low-fat agenda, for some reason). I participated in the DPP and I rejected their low-fat diet (the participants were told that grain and sugar didn't matter--just keeping the fat and calories low). I kept to my own healthy lower carb diet and made no attempt to restrict fat (though I was easily able to stay below my calorie-allotment). I was the ONLY one in my class of 28 people who made not only my weight goal (lost 14 pounds during the course of the program) AND my waist-measurement goal, but I am the only one who still is running normal B.P. and blood glucose (they did a re-check in our group at 3 months after the initial program).0 -
Great video. And to add to the discussion:
Diabetes and pre-diabetes can be reversed. I mean, it happens all the time for people who've undergone WLS. I don't think that this disproves the supposition that IR/Metabolic Syndrome cause weight gain. I think we need to stop thinking in such a black and white fashion about such complicated and little understood body mechanisms. It makes a lot of sense that both could be possible...because both totally happen in real life. (Fat people can become IR/pre-diabetic, and diabetic, and people of normal weight can become IR and eventually obese.) I also don't think it's just a matter of what people are eating, though that may greatly exacerbate matters.0 -
I heard somebody mention this the other day. I think this is a very interesting line of study and I like that somebody is looking at things a different way. We'll see what the studies show...He asks the question, "What if becoming obese is the better option that the body pursues rather than succumbing to Type II diabetes?"
The studies will show whatever Taubes and crew want them to show.
Sorry, not listening. "Gary Taubes and Peter Attia, the co-founders of the non-profit organization Nutrition Science Initiative"0 -
I heard somebody mention this the other day. I think this is a very interesting line of study and I like that somebody is looking at things a different way. We'll see what the studies show...He asks the question, "What if becoming obese is the better option that the body pursues rather than succumbing to Type II diabetes?"
The studies will show whatever Taubes and crew want them to show.
Sorry, not listening. "Gary Taubes and Peter Attia, the co-founders of the non-profit organization Nutrition Science Initiative"
Peter Attia is a respected physician, medical researcher and surgeon. It is pretty arrogant to dismiss him just because he is voicing an opinion that is not popular with you and others here. What medical credentials do YOU have? Here is just a small part of Peter Attia's:
" While he was studying mechanical engineering as an undergrad, a personal experience led him to discover his passion for medicine. He enrolled at Stanford Medical School, and went on to a residency in general surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital and a post-doctoral fellowship at the National Cancer Institute..."
Ante up?0 -
You don't need to be overweight to get diabetes, if Peter Attia feels contempt for his patients then he's in the wrong profession.0
-
You don't need to be overweight to get diabetes, if Peter Attia feels contempt for his patients then he's in the wrong profession.
I think he is an honorable man to admit in a public venue how wrong he was to feel that way and he says, with much obvious emotion, that he hopes if she is listening that she can forgive him.0 -
I guess all my replies have been erased, so pm me tomorrow if you'd like to discuss diabetes and evolution, fibrinogen and cold, cold diuresis, frogsicles, Younger Dryas, and so on. Done now.0
-
What this doesn't explain is the people (some whom I know personally) who lost weight and their diabetes disappeared. I've also heard studies done (sorry, I can't quote any right now and don't have time to research) that high fat--especially certain kinds of fat--can contribute to diabetes more than sugar. They did a study with healthy firemen and fed one high sugar and the other high fat. After a period of time, most of the high-fat group were pre-diabetic, and none of the high-sugar group were. If I remember correctly, none of the men had a family history of diabetes.
I also know that Mexicans tend to have high rates of diabetes. My grandfather (Mexican) died of complications to diabetes, and my mom (half Mexican) has diabetes. She is overweight but I don't think technically obese. I'm not sure. I have no signs so far, but I keep my fat intake moderate (roughly 30%).0 -
Wow. Super interesting thread. Thanks for sharing.0
-
To throw a wrench in here, both my doctors (former from a different state and current) told me I 'got' diabetes because I carry the gene for it, I just "got it sooner" (at 45-ish vice 75-ish) because I am over weight.0
-
What this doesn't explain is the people (some whom I know personally) who lost weight and their diabetes disappeared. I've also heard studies done (sorry, I can't quote any right now and don't have time to research) that high fat--especially certain kinds of fat--can contribute to diabetes more than sugar. They did a study with healthy firemen and fed one high sugar and the other high fat. After a period of time, most of the high-fat group were pre-diabetic, and none of the high-sugar group were. If I remember correctly, none of the men had a family history of diabetes.
I also know that Mexicans tend to have high rates of diabetes. My grandfather (Mexican) died of complications to diabetes, and my mom (half Mexican) has diabetes. She is overweight but I don't think technically obese. I'm not sure. I have no signs so far, but I keep my fat intake moderate (roughly 30%).
Your friends sounds like a medical miracle . Millions of people around the world would like to know how they managed to make their diabetes disappear and big pharmaceuticals would pay top dollar for that knowledge too, I'm talking 7 figures here. Unless maybe, all they really did was manage their Diabetes by cutting out most carbs or eating extremely less carbs.0 -
What this doesn't explain is the people (some whom I know personally) who lost weight and their diabetes disappeared. I've also heard studies done (sorry, I can't quote any right now and don't have time to research) that high fat--especially certain kinds of fat--can contribute to diabetes more than sugar. They did a study with healthy firemen and fed one high sugar and the other high fat. After a period of time, most of the high-fat group were pre-diabetic, and none of the high-sugar group were. If I remember correctly, none of the men had a family history of diabetes.
I also know that Mexicans tend to have high rates of diabetes. My grandfather (Mexican) died of complications to diabetes, and my mom (half Mexican) has diabetes. She is overweight but I don't think technically obese. I'm not sure. I have no signs so far, but I keep my fat intake moderate (roughly 30%).
I was "pre-diabetic" and when I went on a lower carb/no sugar diet for controlling my blood sugar, my blood pressure went to normal in a few weeks and over the course of three years, I have gradually lost 60 pounds. I think the blood sugar was controlled first, leading to weight loss. Just because weight loss is associated with curbing diabetes doesn't mean that the weight loss directly caused a cessation of diabetic pathology.
I agree with you--I think that high saturated fat consumption is probably also part of the picture as well. They know that high saturated fat intake is associated with inflammation in the body and that Type II diabetics almost always have high levels of markers for inflammation in their blood. I eat very little red meat because it always seems to cause a flare in my gouty arthritis (because it leads to higher uric acid levels in the body). Red meat is also rich in arachidonic acid, another pro-inflammatory. So it isn't a far stretch to think that the saturated fat is a problem.
In some ways, a high grain starch diet may do more to raise blood sugar than a bit of sugar. The researchers who put the glycemic index together noted that many starchy foods, like white bread and white rice, caused blood sugar to rise farther and faster than just taking in a few spoonfuls of sugar. I know from experience that just cutting out sugar will lower fasting blood glucose numbers some, but keeping a lid on total carbohydrates and eating low on the glycemic list for carbohydrates will lower blood glucose even more.
What researchers have noted is that the bodies of some people are VERY efficient at converting starches into fructose and then starts the whole undesirable metabolic cascade because the fructose is then converted to uric acid. At first they were baffled because, even when the subjects of the study were given no fruit at all, the researchers noted fructose in the blood of the test subjects. Grain starch contains fructans that are quite easily converted to fructose. 0 -
I'm interested in this discussion. On my mom's side, they all have type 2 diabetes. They are all overweight except my grand-dad. He has aways been really thin and been active all of his life. He still got diabetes. So, I'm wondering why. My dad has always eaten tons of sugar (pies and desserts everyday), he's very active and thin. Not diabetic. So why would carbs affect some people and doesn't affect others?
(I haven't watched the video yet)
My wife is a doctor. Its simple. Humans were not designed to consume refined sugar. it is a pharacuetical grade. Once you injest it, your blood sugar skyrockets, thus causing your insulin to skyrocket to allow your cells to take in the sugars.
Just like any other drug (think alcohol), your tolerance to insulin builds if you are exposed too often.
Thus, type 2 diabetes.
Bam. Stop eating ****, and no diabetes.
Does everyone who eats a lot of sugar get diabetes? No. Does everyone who smokes get lung cancer? No, but I wouldnt ****ing risk it.0 -
I'm interested in this discussion. On my mom's side, they all have type 2 diabetes. They are all overweight except my grand-dad. He has aways been really thin and been active all of his life. He still got diabetes. So, I'm wondering why. My dad has always eaten tons of sugar (pies and desserts everyday), he's very active and thin. Not diabetic. So why would carbs affect some people and doesn't affect others?
(I haven't watched the video yet)
My wife is a doctor. Its simple. Humans were not designed to consume refined sugar. it is a pharacuetical grade. Once you injest it, your blood sugar skyrockets, thus causing your insulin to skyrocket to allow your cells to take in the sugars.
Just like any other drug (think alcohol), your tolerance to insulin builds if you are exposed too often.
Thus, type 2 diabetes.
Bam. Stop eating ****, and no diabetes.
Does everyone who eats a lot of sugar get diabetes? No. Does everyone who smokes get lung cancer? No, but I wouldnt ****ing risk it.
Yes--I think there is wisdom in this approach. How can any of us know whether we have the genetics to develop Type II under the "right" circumstances? It is likely best for the majority of the people to avoid those circumstances since so many people are becoming Type II diabetics these days. Perhaps a majority of us have the gene(s). The whole field of epigenetics is looking at how gene expression is influenced by diet, exercise, personal habits, etc.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
- 400 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
- 987 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions