Official diabetes diet misinformation - any candidates for the Darwin Awards?
Options
Replies
-
Could be worse...
Take this advice from the British Dairy Council with a grain of salt. (That's all you're allowed.
http://www.milk.co.uk/page.aspx?intPageID=151Individuals with diabetes are recommended to consume a healthy balanced diet low in fat (particularly saturated fat), high in fiber and complex carbohydrates (that release sugar slowly) and low in salt and alcohol.
More specifically, research shows that dairy foods and milk can be protective against diabetes and insulin resistance in overweight adults.3 -
Not to be outdone, the ADA counters with this curious quartet as its top 4 dairy items:
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/dairy.htmlThe best choices of dairy products are:-
*Fat-free or low-fat (1% milk)
*Plain non-fat yogurt (regular or Greek yogurt)
*Non-fat light yogurt (regular or Greek yogurt)
*Unflavored fortified soy milk
3 -
*insert eye roll*1
-
I'll give the ADA credit in coming a long ways in the past 2 decades as far as their nutrition recommendations, but they still have some room to grow. It isn't clear why they are so hesitant to recommend low carb diets for diabetics (especially type 2's trying to control without insulin), but I have a feeling that a big part of it is related to the push back from constituents / patients that will be upset about the idea.2
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »I'll give the ADA credit in coming a long ways in the past 2 decades as far as their nutrition recommendations, but they still have some room to grow. It isn't clear why they are so hesitant to recommend low carb diets for diabetics (especially type 2's trying to control without insulin), but I have a feeling that a big part of it is related to the push back from constituents / patients that will be upset about the idea.
I hate to be overly cynical, but my guess is the reason they keep pushing low fat and not low carb is because they get federal money and the all knowing feds have already determined dietary fat is bad for us. And we all know the federal government never makes mistakes. We also all know that if you do anything that disagrees with the feds, they cut off the money so fast your head will spin.5 -
cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I'll give the ADA credit in coming a long ways in the past 2 decades as far as their nutrition recommendations, but they still have some room to grow. It isn't clear why they are so hesitant to recommend low carb diets for diabetics (especially type 2's trying to control without insulin), but I have a feeling that a big part of it is related to the push back from constituents / patients that will be upset about the idea.
I hate to be overly cynical, but my guess is the reason they keep pushing low fat and not low carb is because they get federal money and the all knowing feds have already determined dietary fat is bad for us. And we all know the federal government never makes mistakes. We also all know that if you do anything that disagrees with the feds, they cut off the money so fast your head will spin.
When misguided regulations are perceived to have caused unnecessary damage, there's almost always another bunch of folks in the private sector quietly harvesting a king's ransom in profits.
Assuming supply and demand drive regulation, as they do other major economic factors, then it is usually enlightening to look under the blanket - if you can - to see who's making out under a particular regime (and to look for contact between those folks and the regulatory agency du jour).
I'm not buying the proposition that the poor ADA was bamboozled by the govt, or that federal funding drove its positions. The ADA is huge and sophisticated, and it does does shockingly well with revenue from ads, promotions, and donations.
Here's a simpler, possible explanation:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160912122356.htm
1 -
Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
4 -
Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
One caveat to that line is it seems there is more of a link to volume of food over being overweight. There are many athletes - especially endurance athletes - who end up with type 2. I was within 5 lbs of being "normal BMI" when I was diagnosed with type 2 last year (6'1" and 195 lbs). However, for nearly my entire life, I lived by the philosophy of "I will work out as much as I have to in order to eat what I want, when I want and however much I want." As a result, I was a workout fiend (weights, basketball, racquetball, softball, etc.) for decades. I also took "all you can eat" as a challenge at restaurants and would eat 40+ pieces of pizza 2, 3 or even 4 times a week. That 6000+ calorie a day diet, even though I was burning it off, eventually bit me in the butt. It took until I was nearly 45, but that volume of food (or crap masquerading as food) is just not healthy. Part of what I have done to get my BG under control is actually reduce my activity level to a point where I am only burning 3000-3500 calories a day. I think, I may be better off if I can get it down to a level even closer to "normal."2 -
cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
One caveat to that line is it seems there is more of a link to volume of food over being overweight. There are many athletes - especially endurance athletes - who end up with type 2. I was within 5 lbs of being "normal BMI" when I was diagnosed with type 2 last year (6'1" and 195 lbs). However, for nearly my entire life, I lived by the philosophy of "I will work out as much as I have to in order to eat what I want, when I want and however much I want." As a result, I was a workout fiend (weights, basketball, racquetball, softball, etc.) for decades. I also took "all you can eat" as a challenge at restaurants and would eat 40+ pieces of pizza 2, 3 or even 4 times a week. That 6000+ calorie a day diet, even though I was burning it off, eventually bit me in the butt. It took until I was nearly 45, but that volume of food (or crap masquerading as food) is just not healthy. Part of what I have done to get my BG under control is actually reduce my activity level to a point where I am only burning 3000-3500 calories a day. I think, I may be better off if I can get it down to a level even closer to "normal."
That's interesting. Do you know if you are experiencing IR or if you are actually making less insulin? The reason I ask is because your story makes me wonder whether there is a lifetime limit to pancreas output. If it can actually wear out much more quickly than other parts of our body, if used at higher capacities (because more food, particularly more carbs). Though we know nearly all type 2's are IR, my curiosity on reduced output is activated.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
Very elegantly put.
Also missing from the AND's facile declaration is the insulin production/resistance, which you've also touched on.
Thanks for chiming in.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
One caveat to that line is it seems there is more of a link to volume of food over being overweight. There are many athletes - especially endurance athletes - who end up with type 2. I was within 5 lbs of being "normal BMI" when I was diagnosed with type 2 last year (6'1" and 195 lbs). However, for nearly my entire life, I lived by the philosophy of "I will work out as much as I have to in order to eat what I want, when I want and however much I want." As a result, I was a workout fiend (weights, basketball, racquetball, softball, etc.) for decades. I also took "all you can eat" as a challenge at restaurants and would eat 40+ pieces of pizza 2, 3 or even 4 times a week. That 6000+ calorie a day diet, even though I was burning it off, eventually bit me in the butt. It took until I was nearly 45, but that volume of food (or crap masquerading as food) is just not healthy. Part of what I have done to get my BG under control is actually reduce my activity level to a point where I am only burning 3000-3500 calories a day. I think, I may be better off if I can get it down to a level even closer to "normal."
That's interesting. Do you know if you are experiencing IR or if you are actually making less insulin? The reason I ask is because your story makes me wonder whether there is a lifetime limit to pancreas output. If it can actually wear out much more quickly than other parts of our body, if used at higher capacities (because more food, particularly more carbs). Though we know nearly all type 2's are IR, my curiosity on reduced output is activated.
According to one of the Keto Summit presenters (sorry, I can't remember which one as I listened to several) said those susceptible to IR essentially had a lifetime limit that once reached, would start making the cells resistant. He said you could eat a ton of carbs and trigger it in your 20's, or eat a more moderate amount and not have any issues until you are in your 60's. Given the changes in the American diet from about 40% carbs 50 years ago to 55% now correlating to the dramatic increase in T2 at younger ages would seem to support this hypothesis. Even though my diet was probably closer to 40% carbs, the sheer volume of food I ate made the number of carbs way too high.
I have not had my insulin levels tested. Both my PCP and Endo have stated the assumption is I am IR. Another of the presenters on the Keto Summit (a woman researcher - again, can't remember her name) stated that fasting insulin levels could vary by as much as =/- 75% so to really know what it is, one would have to get it tested several times to get the average.
I would lean toward believing I am IR based on the fact that during the few years leading up to being diagnosed T2, I had to really work much harder to avoid gaining weight even though I was already reducing how much I ate substantially. From what I have read, that is common when one is IR because the cells won't take the insulin, the insulin starts trying to push that extra energy into fat cells. Switching to Keto in August and keeping calories and activity level about even, I immediately dropped about 10 lbs in about 3 weeks.1 -
cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
One caveat to that line is it seems there is more of a link to volume of food over being overweight. There are many athletes - especially endurance athletes - who end up with type 2. I was within 5 lbs of being "normal BMI" when I was diagnosed with type 2 last year (6'1" and 195 lbs). However, for nearly my entire life, I lived by the philosophy of "I will work out as much as I have to in order to eat what I want, when I want and however much I want." As a result, I was a workout fiend (weights, basketball, racquetball, softball, etc.) for decades. I also took "all you can eat" as a challenge at restaurants and would eat 40+ pieces of pizza 2, 3 or even 4 times a week. That 6000+ calorie a day diet, even though I was burning it off, eventually bit me in the butt. It took until I was nearly 45, but that volume of food (or crap masquerading as food) is just not healthy. Part of what I have done to get my BG under control is actually reduce my activity level to a point where I am only burning 3000-3500 calories a day. I think, I may be better off if I can get it down to a level even closer to "normal."
That's interesting. Do you know if you are experiencing IR or if you are actually making less insulin? The reason I ask is because your story makes me wonder whether there is a lifetime limit to pancreas output. If it can actually wear out much more quickly than other parts of our body, if used at higher capacities (because more food, particularly more carbs). Though we know nearly all type 2's are IR, my curiosity on reduced output is activated.
According to one of the Keto Summit presenters (sorry, I can't remember which one as I listened to several) said those susceptible to IR essentially had a lifetime limit that once reached, would start making the cells resistant. He said you could eat a ton of carbs and trigger it in your 20's, or eat a more moderate amount and not have any issues until you are in your 60's. Given the changes in the American diet from about 40% carbs 50 years ago to 55% now correlating to the dramatic increase in T2 at younger ages would seem to support this hypothesis. Even though my diet was probably closer to 40% carbs, the sheer volume of food I ate made the number of carbs way too high.
I have not had my insulin levels tested. Both my PCP and Endo have stated the assumption is I am IR. Another of the presenters on the Keto Summit (a woman researcher - again, can't remember her name) stated that fasting insulin levels could vary by as much as =/- 75% so to really know what it is, one would have to get it tested several times to get the average.
I would lean toward believing I am IR based on the fact that during the few years leading up to being diagnosed T2, I had to really work much harder to avoid gaining weight even though I was already reducing how much I ate substantially. From what I have read, that is common when one is IR because the cells won't take the insulin, the insulin starts trying to push that extra energy into fat cells. Switching to Keto in August and keeping calories and activity level about even, I immediately dropped about 10 lbs in about 3 weeks.
An article on DietDoctor.com asserts:
https://www.dietdoctor.com/lose-weight-by-achieving-optimal-ketosisTo encourage ketone production, the amount of insulin in your bloodstream must be low. The lower your insulin, the higher your ketone production. And when you have a well-controlled, sufficiently large amount of ketones in your blood, it’s basically proof that your insulin is very low – and therefore, that you’re enjoying the maximum effect of your low-carbohydrate diet. That’s what’s called optimal ketosis. ***
The trick here is not only to avoid all obvious sourced of carbohydrate (sweets, bread, spaghetti, rice, potatoes), but also to be careful with your protein intake. If you eat large amounts of meat, eggs and the like, the excess protein will converted into glucose in the body. Large amounts of protein can also raise your insulin levels somewhat. This compromises optimal ketosis. * * *
More fat in your food will fill you up more. This will ensure you eat less protein, and even less carbohydrate. Your insulin will drop and, hopefully, you’ll be able to reach optimal ketosis. And that’s when many a stubborn weight plateau is overcome.
Considering that a certain amount of protein must be consumed in order to maintain lean tissue, the best strategy may be to spread the limited daily protein intake evenly among however many meals you eat. One commentator suggested not exceeding 25-30g of protein per meal. However, Steve Phinney opined just a few years ago that the research on protein timing had not been carried out (though not through a lack of trying, as he had unsuccessfully applied for a government grant to study the question).
NB: DietDoctor recommends blood ketone monitoring. In my limited experience, the blood ketones move around a bit more than the excreted ketones measured in urine, and there was not much correlation between the two.
0 -
cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
One caveat to that line is it seems there is more of a link to volume of food over being overweight. There are many athletes - especially endurance athletes - who end up with type 2. I was within 5 lbs of being "normal BMI" when I was diagnosed with type 2 last year (6'1" and 195 lbs). However, for nearly my entire life, I lived by the philosophy of "I will work out as much as I have to in order to eat what I want, when I want and however much I want." As a result, I was a workout fiend (weights, basketball, racquetball, softball, etc.) for decades. I also took "all you can eat" as a challenge at restaurants and would eat 40+ pieces of pizza 2, 3 or even 4 times a week. That 6000+ calorie a day diet, even though I was burning it off, eventually bit me in the butt. It took until I was nearly 45, but that volume of food (or crap masquerading as food) is just not healthy. Part of what I have done to get my BG under control is actually reduce my activity level to a point where I am only burning 3000-3500 calories a day. I think, I may be better off if I can get it down to a level even closer to "normal."
That's interesting. Do you know if you are experiencing IR or if you are actually making less insulin? The reason I ask is because your story makes me wonder whether there is a lifetime limit to pancreas output. If it can actually wear out much more quickly than other parts of our body, if used at higher capacities (because more food, particularly more carbs). Though we know nearly all type 2's are IR, my curiosity on reduced output is activated.
According to one of the Keto Summit presenters (sorry, I can't remember which one as I listened to several) said those susceptible to IR essentially had a lifetime limit that once reached, would start making the cells resistant. He said you could eat a ton of carbs and trigger it in your 20's, or eat a more moderate amount and not have any issues until you are in your 60's. Given the changes in the American diet from about 40% carbs 50 years ago to 55% now correlating to the dramatic increase in T2 at younger ages would seem to support this hypothesis. Even though my diet was probably closer to 40% carbs, the sheer volume of food I ate made the number of carbs way too high.
I have not had my insulin levels tested. Both my PCP and Endo have stated the assumption is I am IR. Another of the presenters on the Keto Summit (a woman researcher - again, can't remember her name) stated that fasting insulin levels could vary by as much as =/- 75% so to really know what it is, one would have to get it tested several times to get the average.
I would lean toward believing I am IR based on the fact that during the few years leading up to being diagnosed T2, I had to really work much harder to avoid gaining weight even though I was already reducing how much I ate substantially. From what I have read, that is common when one is IR because the cells won't take the insulin, the insulin starts trying to push that extra energy into fat cells. Switching to Keto in August and keeping calories and activity level about even, I immediately dropped about 10 lbs in about 3 weeks.
@cstehansen - Unless someone else said it, too, Dr. Catherine Crofts from New Zealand was talking about how dynamic insulin is and that it can change within a 75% range, so taking a fasting insulin level really doesn't tells you much of anything, as insulin is a dynamic quick changing hormone in response to glucose and other issues.
Both she and Chris Masterjohn PhD discussed how there are actually 4 separate hormones that affect blood glucose processing, and insulin is just the only one we even loosely track and such. Gluca...something was one of the others he referred to...1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
One caveat to that line is it seems there is more of a link to volume of food over being overweight. There are many athletes - especially endurance athletes - who end up with type 2. I was within 5 lbs of being "normal BMI" when I was diagnosed with type 2 last year (6'1" and 195 lbs). However, for nearly my entire life, I lived by the philosophy of "I will work out as much as I have to in order to eat what I want, when I want and however much I want." As a result, I was a workout fiend (weights, basketball, racquetball, softball, etc.) for decades. I also took "all you can eat" as a challenge at restaurants and would eat 40+ pieces of pizza 2, 3 or even 4 times a week. That 6000+ calorie a day diet, even though I was burning it off, eventually bit me in the butt. It took until I was nearly 45, but that volume of food (or crap masquerading as food) is just not healthy. Part of what I have done to get my BG under control is actually reduce my activity level to a point where I am only burning 3000-3500 calories a day. I think, I may be better off if I can get it down to a level even closer to "normal."
That's interesting. Do you know if you are experiencing IR or if you are actually making less insulin? The reason I ask is because your story makes me wonder whether there is a lifetime limit to pancreas output. If it can actually wear out much more quickly than other parts of our body, if used at higher capacities (because more food, particularly more carbs). Though we know nearly all type 2's are IR, my curiosity on reduced output is activated.
@midwesterner85 Dear Gods above and below, I hope there's not a lifetime Pancreatic output. I would imagine that it is more like the liver/gallbladder type system. A certain amount is banked for daily use, and as long as glucose requirements don't exceed the pancreatic daily output, the pancreas doesn't have to work overtime and burn through it's "lifetime" stores more quickly. The reason I say I hope not, is that would mean that any of us who had a few years of STUPID level carb consumption, that it is inevitable, no matter how healthy we become or how low of carb we eat, we can't ever heal insulin resistance or will inevitably become Type 2 Diabetic. I understand that even with LADA that the beta cells can be killed off through the autoimmune process, but I would think that as long as you have some beta cells left, you will have some level of insulin production, even if it is less that what your body things it needs.0 -
cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
One caveat to that line is it seems there is more of a link to volume of food over being overweight. There are many athletes - especially endurance athletes - who end up with type 2. I was within 5 lbs of being "normal BMI" when I was diagnosed with type 2 last year (6'1" and 195 lbs). However, for nearly my entire life, I lived by the philosophy of "I will work out as much as I have to in order to eat what I want, when I want and however much I want." As a result, I was a workout fiend (weights, basketball, racquetball, softball, etc.) for decades. I also took "all you can eat" as a challenge at restaurants and would eat 40+ pieces of pizza 2, 3 or even 4 times a week. That 6000+ calorie a day diet, even though I was burning it off, eventually bit me in the butt. It took until I was nearly 45, but that volume of food (or crap masquerading as food) is just not healthy. Part of what I have done to get my BG under control is actually reduce my activity level to a point where I am only burning 3000-3500 calories a day. I think, I may be better off if I can get it down to a level even closer to "normal."
That's interesting. Do you know if you are experiencing IR or if you are actually making less insulin? The reason I ask is because your story makes me wonder whether there is a lifetime limit to pancreas output. If it can actually wear out much more quickly than other parts of our body, if used at higher capacities (because more food, particularly more carbs). Though we know nearly all type 2's are IR, my curiosity on reduced output is activated.
According to one of the Keto Summit presenters (sorry, I can't remember which one as I listened to several) said those susceptible to IR essentially had a lifetime limit that once reached, would start making the cells resistant. He said you could eat a ton of carbs and trigger it in your 20's, or eat a more moderate amount and not have any issues until you are in your 60's. Given the changes in the American diet from about 40% carbs 50 years ago to 55% now correlating to the dramatic increase in T2 at younger ages would seem to support this hypothesis. Even though my diet was probably closer to 40% carbs, the sheer volume of food I ate made the number of carbs way too high.
I have not had my insulin levels tested. Both my PCP and Endo have stated the assumption is I am IR. Another of the presenters on the Keto Summit (a woman researcher - again, can't remember her name) stated that fasting insulin levels could vary by as much as =/- 75% so to really know what it is, one would have to get it tested several times to get the average.
I would lean toward believing I am IR based on the fact that during the few years leading up to being diagnosed T2, I had to really work much harder to avoid gaining weight even though I was already reducing how much I ate substantially. From what I have read, that is common when one is IR because the cells won't take the insulin, the insulin starts trying to push that extra energy into fat cells. Switching to Keto in August and keeping calories and activity level about even, I immediately dropped about 10 lbs in about 3 weeks.
An article on DietDoctor.com asserts:
https://www.dietdoctor.com/lose-weight-by-achieving-optimal-ketosisTo encourage ketone production, the amount of insulin in your bloodstream must be low. The lower your insulin, the higher your ketone production. And when you have a well-controlled, sufficiently large amount of ketones in your blood, it’s basically proof that your insulin is very low – and therefore, that you’re enjoying the maximum effect of your low-carbohydrate diet. That’s what’s called optimal ketosis. ***
The trick here is not only to avoid all obvious sourced of carbohydrate (sweets, bread, spaghetti, rice, potatoes), but also to be careful with your protein intake. If you eat large amounts of meat, eggs and the like, the excess protein will converted into glucose in the body. Large amounts of protein can also raise your insulin levels somewhat. This compromises optimal ketosis. * * *
More fat in your food will fill you up more. This will ensure you eat less protein, and even less carbohydrate. Your insulin will drop and, hopefully, you’ll be able to reach optimal ketosis. And that’s when many a stubborn weight plateau is overcome.
Considering that a certain amount of protein must be consumed in order to maintain lean tissue, the best strategy may be to spread the limited daily protein intake evenly among however many meals you eat. One commentator suggested not exceeding 25-30g of protein per meal. However, Steve Phinney opined just a few years ago that the research on protein timing had not been carried out (though not through a lack of trying, as he had unsuccessfully applied for a government grant to study the question).
NB: DietDoctor recommends blood ketone monitoring. In my limited experience, the blood ketones move around a bit more than the excreted ketones measured in urine, and there was not much correlation between the two.
Thanks, @RalfLott. I have played around with protein intake. As you can imagine, having a calorie intake that is high, it is very difficult to keep protein very low without eating meals of straight butter. I think the weight training I do along with the fact I move a lot all day helps with any gluconeogenesis. What I have noticed, personally, is that too much protein at dinner negatively affects my morning FBG. Having higher amounts of protein earlier in the day does not seem to affect PP readings or some of the random readings I take.
As for blood ketones vs urine, 2 experts I have heard, one from the Keto Summit and another is the doc from Keto Talk with Jimmy and the Doc, have mentioned only a small amount should be in the urine once your body has adapted to ketosis. If you have higher amounts in your urine after being in ketosis for a while, that would actually be a negative thing indicating a potential medical issue as your body should be burning these ketones and not spilling them.
I have not yet tested blood ketones. Urine readings are consistent in the "small" range. Long story, but $ is a bit tight right now but should be cleared up in the next few weeks. I am planning on getting a blood monitor at that time to check.0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
One caveat to that line is it seems there is more of a link to volume of food over being overweight. There are many athletes - especially endurance athletes - who end up with type 2. I was within 5 lbs of being "normal BMI" when I was diagnosed with type 2 last year (6'1" and 195 lbs). However, for nearly my entire life, I lived by the philosophy of "I will work out as much as I have to in order to eat what I want, when I want and however much I want." As a result, I was a workout fiend (weights, basketball, racquetball, softball, etc.) for decades. I also took "all you can eat" as a challenge at restaurants and would eat 40+ pieces of pizza 2, 3 or even 4 times a week. That 6000+ calorie a day diet, even though I was burning it off, eventually bit me in the butt. It took until I was nearly 45, but that volume of food (or crap masquerading as food) is just not healthy. Part of what I have done to get my BG under control is actually reduce my activity level to a point where I am only burning 3000-3500 calories a day. I think, I may be better off if I can get it down to a level even closer to "normal."
That's interesting. Do you know if you are experiencing IR or if you are actually making less insulin? The reason I ask is because your story makes me wonder whether there is a lifetime limit to pancreas output. If it can actually wear out much more quickly than other parts of our body, if used at higher capacities (because more food, particularly more carbs). Though we know nearly all type 2's are IR, my curiosity on reduced output is activated.
@midwesterner85 Dear Gods above and below, I hope there's not a lifetime Pancreatic output. I would imagine that it is more like the liver/gallbladder type system. A certain amount is banked for daily use, and as long as glucose requirements don't exceed the pancreatic daily output, the pancreas doesn't have to work overtime and burn through it's "lifetime" stores more quickly. The reason I say I hope not, is that would mean that any of us who had a few years of STUPID level carb consumption, that it is inevitable, no matter how healthy we become or how low of carb we eat, we can't ever heal insulin resistance or will inevitably become Type 2 Diabetic. I understand that even with LADA that the beta cells can be killed off through the autoimmune process, but I would think that as long as you have some beta cells left, you will have some level of insulin production, even if it is less that what your body things it needs.
First, let's be clear that LADA is Type 1. The only difference is that the auto-immune response takes longer for adults. The "honeymoon" stage may be longer, but it is still Type 1 and is a totally different pathway than Type 2.
For Type 2, I hope there is no limit also, but I just wonder if one's pancreas really does wear out and cease to function before everything else - at least perhaps in some people. It isn't something I had previously considered, and I don't know if there is much research available. But it sounds plausible, doesn't it?1 -
@midwesterner85 I apologize for blurring the line, but yes, I knew LADA is T1D, and T2D is at whole different animal/ballgame...
I (personally) think it's not a case of a lifetime issue - it's more of an overload issue. Like a battery has a set amount of output before it needs to recharge, and if you keep running the battery down to 1% over and over and over again, pretty soon it won't recharge anymore, or if it does, it won't go back to it's full capacity. Or, we're tapping out the "pulse" feature, how much we need allATonceRIGHTnowDARNit...and that does a rapid drain on the stored capacity, etc.
So if we drain that ability and keep telling Scotty to give us more power from the dilithium crystals, eventually we'll drain them, and they might continue to work for a little bit, but never at full power, not without some sort of a recharge (which I imagine may exist in nature for the pancreas, somehow, somewhere, if caught in time...)...0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here's another lame entrant:
I suppose one could make the hypertechnical argument that "food doesn't cause diabetes" on account of it's actually the acts of shoving bad food into our mouths and swallowing it that does the trick. But really......The causes of diabetes are complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn't cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease.*
*Courtesy, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
Type 1 is caused by genetics (HLA genes on chromosome 6) and a trigger for the auto-immune response (you need both).
There is a rare version of type 2 with a different pathway that is known to be caused by genetics. For nearly everyone else with type 2 (98% or more of those properly diagnosed as type 2... but that is a different rant), the genetic links are really loose. If you read through those studies trying to suggest type 2 is genetic, the argument always boils down to where some variants of some genes make weight management more difficult for some people. The argument then becomes that a gene causes type 2 diabetes when the reality is that it creates a challenge to weight control, and being overweight results in type 2 diabetes... along with other medical issues.
IMO, nobody should suggest that type 2 is genetic unless they can actually identify a specific gene in common among the 98% with an IR pathway. And even then, additional research should still be pursued to explain how that gene causes type 2. But the reality is that nearly all type 2's are just overweight (even if they won't acknowledge, even to themselves, that they are overweight... that is another discussion, though).
One caveat to that line is it seems there is more of a link to volume of food over being overweight. There are many athletes - especially endurance athletes - who end up with type 2. I was within 5 lbs of being "normal BMI" when I was diagnosed with type 2 last year (6'1" and 195 lbs). However, for nearly my entire life, I lived by the philosophy of "I will work out as much as I have to in order to eat what I want, when I want and however much I want." As a result, I was a workout fiend (weights, basketball, racquetball, softball, etc.) for decades. I also took "all you can eat" as a challenge at restaurants and would eat 40+ pieces of pizza 2, 3 or even 4 times a week. That 6000+ calorie a day diet, even though I was burning it off, eventually bit me in the butt. It took until I was nearly 45, but that volume of food (or crap masquerading as food) is just not healthy. Part of what I have done to get my BG under control is actually reduce my activity level to a point where I am only burning 3000-3500 calories a day. I think, I may be better off if I can get it down to a level even closer to "normal."
That's interesting. Do you know if you are experiencing IR or if you are actually making less insulin? The reason I ask is because your story makes me wonder whether there is a lifetime limit to pancreas output. If it can actually wear out much more quickly than other parts of our body, if used at higher capacities (because more food, particularly more carbs). Though we know nearly all type 2's are IR, my curiosity on reduced output is activated.
That's a pretty interesting idea @midwesterner85 and one to which I choose to subscribe for the body overall. I had a doctor tell me once, "A heart has only so many beats".1 -
Ok. Not exactly "misinformation" but close enough:
Domino Foods, Inc. Named National Strategic Partner of American Diabetes Association
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/domino-foods-inc-named-national-strategic-partner-of-american-diabetes-association-187010731.html3
