Official diabetes diet misinformation - any candidates for the Darwin Awards?
Replies
-
KenSmith108 wrote: »
or 
That not how it works! That's not how any of it works!8 -
2
-
I'm especially fond of the ADA cookies & muffins.
or 4 -
@KenSmith108 if I ate like that picture I'd be in a coma all the time! Way too many carbs!0
-
@KenSmith108 if I ate like that picture I'd be in a coma all the time! Way too many carbs!
Nooooo.... say it's not so.
1 -
My ADA meal plan had 3 60g carb meals & 3 30-45g carb snacks.
With that many carbs, I had trouble keeping to that limit.
Eating that many carbs my meds weren't very effective either.
Sometimes if I was careful I could get my Ha1c down into
the 10s, usually not.
On advice of my eye doctor I got involved in LC.
My last 2 a1cs were 6.8 & 6. or
10 -
Here's one from the wacky world of diabetes "education" - take with a grain of salt & a 2-liter bottle of Dr. Pepper...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10465314/fastingRainqueen77 wrote: »I saw the diabetic nutritionist today and she said that fasting would cause my liver to make more glucose and that could be why I still have high fasting blood sugar. I drink coffee in the morning with coconut oil and butter so it's not technically fasting, right? I'm not sure what to make of this because at the same time she was telling me I needed to eat whole grain rice and whole wheat pasta.2 -
Here's one from the wacky world of diabetes "education" - take with a grain of salt & a 2-liter bottle of Dr. Pepper...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10465314/fastingRainqueen77 wrote: »I saw the diabetic nutritionist today and she said that fasting would cause my liver to make more glucose and that could be why I still have high fasting blood sugar. I drink coffee in the morning with coconut oil and butter so it's not technically fasting, right? I'm not sure what to make of this because at the same time she was telling me I needed to eat whole grain rice and whole wheat pasta.
Everyone knows Dr. Pepper wanted his patients to have a caffeine and sugar 'fix' at 10 AM, 2 PM and 4 PM to help them make it through the day. In fairness he did not know about ketosis yet fresh out of med school.
3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Here's one from the wacky world of diabetes "education" - take with a grain of salt & a 2-liter bottle of Dr. Pepper...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10465314/fastingRainqueen77 wrote: »I saw the diabetic nutritionist today and she said that fasting would cause my liver to make more glucose and that could be why I still have high fasting blood sugar. I drink coffee in the morning with coconut oil and butter so it's not technically fasting, right? I'm not sure what to make of this because at the same time she was telling me I needed to eat whole grain rice and whole wheat pasta.
Everyone knows Dr. Pepper wanted his patients to have a caffeine and sugar 'fix' at 10 AM, 2 PM and 4 PM to help them make it through the day. In fairness he did not know about ketosis yet fresh out of med school.
Here's a taste of Dr. Pepper's early ad copy from 1913 explaining how DP is actually liquid sunlight.
I have to wonder whether Lucky Strikes ads over the next decade, which invited health-minded smokers to think of those foul butts as food (or at least as a food substitute, as in "Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet") took their spurious lead from DP.
1 -
Actually all carbs protein and fat is nothing more than stored sunlight for the most part.2
-
Panda_Poptarts wrote: »The real puzzler is.... how many of us having given ourselves diabetes, pre-diabetes, or blood sugar issues BECAUSE we ate the way we were told?
@Panda_Poptarts - I know this is an old thread, still somewhat active, but I gave myself the gift of severe morbid obesity by eating this way. I believe my insulin resistance was preexisting, though it may have developed due to genetic predispostion as a child with my mother feeding me this way...0 -
KETOGENICGURL wrote: »Diabetes is also connected to kidney failure...meaning 44% of diabetics will fail with sick kidneys, and require dialysis to survive.
These diabetes/kidney patients are ALSO advised on the same USDA "plate" of high carbs, and WORSE learn "fear of Bad fats"
The American Kidney Fund (non profit) site says under the banner of "New to kidney disease? Nine things you should do."
3. Stick to the diet
Healthier fat or “good” fat is called unsaturated fat. Examples of unsaturated fat include:
Olive oil, Peanut oil, Corn oil
Unsaturated fat can help reduce cholesterol. If you need to gain weight, try to eat more unsaturated fat. If you need to lose weight, limit the unsaturated fat in your meal plan. As always, moderation is the key. Too much “good” fat can also cause problems.
Saturated fat, also known as “bad” fat, can raise your cholesterol level and raise your risk for heart disease. Examples of saturated fats include:
Butter Lard Shortening Meats
http://www.kidneyfund.org/kidney-disease/chronic-kidney-disease-ckd/kidney-friendly-diet-for-ckd.html
+++++++++++++++++
A major free advice site for both diabetes & kidney failure is www.Davita.com MOST recipes also follow the 'plate' with high carbs, avoid SF.
So you can see this SAME high carb info and "fat" warnings are given endlessly. And patients are told to TRUST the doctor and dietitian.
(Another article I read even said "don't cut carbs on your own..ask for help from a professional.")
To refute this sad advice:
Doubling saturated fat in diet does not increase saturated fat in blood
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141121151104.htm
http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/saturated-fats-and-the-kidneys
@KETOGENICGURL - I'm still catching up on 7 pages of posts here, but the recent Summit that had a presentation from Dr. Crofts included information about WHY diabetics end up with kidney failure many times. I'm going to summarize, but essentially, there are three parts of our body that absorb glucose directly from the blood, without needing insulin to absorb the glucose.
They are the retinas in the eyes, a specific part (I didn't catch the term on the podcast, as she has a heavy New Zealand accent, and the captions were TERRIBLE) of the kidneys, and the red blood cells.
Hence the reason that ANYONE with chronically high blood glucose levels develops these issues - the more glucose there is in the blood, the more these organs soak up...- Eye issues - up to and including blindness,
- Kidney issues - up to and including full kidney failure,
- Blood related disorders - including at the least - high blood pressure and heart related complications - up to and including death.
I mentioned in another thread that her talk really "scared me straight" to an extent. A number of other takeaways hit me strong, too, but this one definitely scared the crappola out of me as far as working to keep my situation under control. SO FAR, my body has saved me from my own stupidity, channeling all that extra blood glucose into impressive levels of fat storage (even after losing 60-70+ pounds, I'm still in the Morbidly Obese category)...
And I say that specifically. SO FAR.
Like, this is my final warning. Get it right or get it GONE...0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Week before last my mom spent two nights in the hospital. She was given what was supposedly a diabetic meal plan....
Breakfast: eggs, bacon, toast, corn flakes, milk, orange juice. Lunch: Roast, mashed potatoes, green beans, roll, and a piece of cinnamon cake. Dinner: Pasta with meat sauce, garlic bread, a slice of lemon pie!
Right before she was released her reading was 262! They were trying to give her 4 units of insulin when she's never needed insulin before, she takes pills. She opted to forego the insulin and just go back to the eating plan I encourage her to be on. She complains but her two days off plan at least showed her my plan works for her!
Hospitals are a joke!
My daughter went into ICU for DKA with blood sugar over 400... We were completely unable to bring it down. She had taken so much insulin with no progress and naturally became acidotic. Anyway, upon being admitted, patients are immediately restricted from eating or even drinking anything because vomitting is expected. But, you're so thirsty it's like your a zombie and water is the only thing you can think about. So, I always sneak her water. (We've been through this several times). Even when blood sugar is normal again and blood ph is normal again too, they still won't let you eat any food at all. But, they will deliver glucose via IV... To counter the fact that they have you on an IV drip of insulin... I always thought that was so stupid. Like, if blood sugar is going too low, turn the damn drip down! Duh!
Anyway, so you're starving for like 24-36 hours before you're cleared to eat from that lovely diabetic menu. Funny thing is, I sneak her no carb foods, like meat, while she's on restriction and nothing happens to blood sugar, of course and she doesn't need to suffer like the first times this happened before I understood how it all worked.
Her first DKA was actually how I discovered Keto. I was researching how it all worked and came across it. lol
Hospitals are ridiculous. When I was preggo I had gestational diabetes so they gave me a nutritionist who was very happy that I was restricting my carbs and sugar intake by so much. I would eat 1 piece of bread with peanut butter a day just so I wouldn't get into ketosis (I don't know enough about keto/pregnancy to mess with that). Anyway I logged everything I ate on here and would go in and visit her and she'd be very pleased with everything I was eating. It was a lot of taco salads, big mac salads, chicken, cauliflower mash, typical low carb foods.
Anyway.
So labor comes and I have my daughter, and we're in the hospital for a few weeks. They give you this menu called "dial for dining" where you call in and order whatever you want for free (Yay Canada). I had the "diabetic" menu which consisted of:
Eggs, toast, ham, cottage cheese, cheddar cheese, potatoes, stir fry, pasta salad, soups, spaghetti.. etc etc. Apple juice, orange juice, coffee and tea for drink choices.
So I would call and start choosing options - I want 3 eggs, ham, bacon, cottage cheese and coffee. Cheese for my snack. The person on the other end would ALWAYS say "... and for your carb?" and I'd have to convince them I didn't want any! Luckily the nutritionist was on my side because they ended up consulting her and telling her I wasn't eating carbs with my meals. I even had people call me back asking me why I was not ordering any carbs, apparently they were keeping track of everything I ate! Haha.
That food program is AMAZING but I wish they'd adopt a more low carb approach for diabetics instead of pushing carb-ey foods.6 -
" wrote:
Bernstein's chart indicates a bit higher BG for A1C's than most other charts I've seen. There are other factors that affect A1C, so there really isn't a one-chart-fits-all for average BG to A1C anyway. Keep in mind too that about half of your A1C is just for the 7-10 days prior to testing it. From my own experience with a CGM, I would say Bernstein's chart is too high. On the other hand, my experience won't be the same as everyone else.
Where did you get that fact? As a med tech (clinical laboratory scientist), hematology maintains RBCs live about 100 to 120 days in the circulation. Once glucose gloms on to the RBC, it doesn't let go giving an average over those past months for the A1c. I'm medically retired now, but is there something new here I've missed?
2 -
" wrote:
Bernstein's chart indicates a bit higher BG for A1C's than most other charts I've seen. There are other factors that affect A1C, so there really isn't a one-chart-fits-all for average BG to A1C anyway. Keep in mind too that about half of your A1C is just for the 7-10 days prior to testing it. From my own experience with a CGM, I would say Bernstein's chart is too high. On the other hand, my experience won't be the same as everyone else.
Where did you get that fact? As a med tech (clinical laboratory scientist), hematology maintains RBCs live about 100 to 120 days in the circulation. Once glucose gloms on to the RBC, it doesn't let go giving an average over those past months for the A1c. I'm medically retired now, but is there something new here I've missed?
I read this in a journal article sometime in the past few years, and I didn't keep track of the article. The old way of thinking (and this is still the way most medical professionals think because of how slowly new science travels throughout the medical community) is that A1C tracks trends over the life of RBC's... which, as you point out, is for months. The conclusion from the article I read doesn't contradict the existing knowledge of build-up and life of RBC's. It did find that the prior 7-10 days of BG had a disproportionately high impact (to the tune of about 50%) on A1C results. I don't recall any explanation for why, so it could just as likely be the result of testing methodology as it is actual accumulation on RBC's.
Over the past several years (decade +?), as the debate about Type 2 diagnostic criteria (debate is about using fasting BG vs. A1C), so much has been explored about A1C. Compared to 21 years ago, when I was first diagnosed with type 1, our understanding of what affects A1C's is light years better.1 -
@Midwesterner, interesting. I'll have to do some research in the literature to see what I can find. The way that A1c is reported hasn't changed in all these years, however. Perhaps regarding the discussion about Dr. Bernstein's correlation of A1c with fbs averages being higher than the more common schedule has something to do with this? (Just thinking out loud).0
-
@Midwesterner, interesting. I'll have to do some research in the literature to see what I can find. The way that A1c is reported hasn't changed in all these years, however. Perhaps regarding the discussion about Dr. Bernstein's correlation of A1c with fbs averages being higher than the more common schedule has something to do with this? (Just thinking out loud).
Not suggesting that anything has changed. Just that the A1C is significantly affected by recent BG's and affected less by BG's over the prior months. Anecdotally, my experience supports this conclusion.0 -
Right up until my Dad died of diabetes complications in July this year he believed that carbs weren't an issue for his diabetes (pasta, a bag of chips etc) rather than fat was the problem. Because this is what his diabetes "specialist" had told him. So he thought it was fine to eat sugar/carby foods as long as he ate low fat. And yet his blood sugar was never under control, not in the 18 years since he was diagnosed, no matter how much medication he took. And it eventually destroyed his heart and his arteries and he died after years of being a very sick man. I can't help but think of how much different his life would have been if a medical professional had given him correct advice (it didn't matter coming from me, I'm not a Doctor).6
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »@Midwesterner, interesting. I'll have to do some research in the literature to see what I can find. The way that A1c is reported hasn't changed in all these years, however. Perhaps regarding the discussion about Dr. Bernstein's correlation of A1c with fbs averages being higher than the more common schedule has something to do with this? (Just thinking out loud).
Not suggesting that anything has changed. Just that the A1C is significantly affected by recent BG's and affected less by BG's over the prior months. Anecdotally, my experience supports this conclusion.
I seem to recall that other variables (hematocrit?) can affect A1c as well. Testing glucose yields a better picture of glucose than A1c. Neither says much about insulin.1 -
KetoTheKingdom wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »@Midwesterner, interesting. I'll have to do some research in the literature to see what I can find. The way that A1c is reported hasn't changed in all these years, however. Perhaps regarding the discussion about Dr. Bernstein's correlation of A1c with fbs averages being higher than the more common schedule has something to do with this? (Just thinking out loud).
Not suggesting that anything has changed. Just that the A1C is significantly affected by recent BG's and affected less by BG's over the prior months. Anecdotally, my experience supports this conclusion.
I seem to recall that other variables (hematocrit?) can affect A1c as well. Testing glucose yields a better picture of glucose than A1c. Neither says much about insulin.
There are quite a few outside factors, but glucose testing is limited to a period in time. So glucose testing, even 10 times per day, is not necessarily better. It is different, though. It is different because you can get specific trends at certain points in time before and at intervals after meals and exercise. Combined with a detailed food (carb) tracking log with times, as well as exercise data, BG testing is a better feedback tool to improve diabetes management. A1C is a more broad viewpoint, so the feedback doesn't help with a specific area. It does, however, tell you overall if you are doing well or not. It is also a way to estimate whether you are in a dangerous zone where risk of complications increases dramatically.
CGM data is valuable for both, but is expensive and rarely will insurance pay for use by type 2's who don't manage with insulin.0 -
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
This discussion has been closed.