Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Do you have pre-diabetes? Simple online test to see if you do...
Replies
-
I scored 4/10, low risk but I am diabetic. My only risk factor is my age (over 60). How was I diagnosed? I had blood work done to help determine why I was so out of breath and weak. Blood glucose was high so they also did an A1C which was 7.3. My problem was severe anemia and the T2Dm diagnosis was incidental to the medical issue.0
-
Not weird at all as food choices aren't a risk factor in the development of Type II diabetes.
Going to need to see some proof of this.
You'll have to look. I do know that carnivorous cultures like the Inuit and Masai have virtually no diabetes until they eat "western" refined and ultraprocessed foods. If you do not eat foods that do not spike blood glucose, you will not be diagnosed as diabetic. You would have to eat a LOT of meat to get a BG spike.
And yes, I know there are cultures out there that are not meat based with almost no T2D. They are generally cultures without refined and ultraprocessed foods in their diets.
Food choices are definitely linked to T2D, as is genetics, lack of activity, age and obesity.10 -
Dreamyriver wrote: »I scored 3/10 - low risk. I put in my old stats, the stats I had when I was diagnosed with Type 2 (not prediabetes, actual diabetes)
How was I actually diagnosed? My gp thought I had an issue with my thyroid and because I was over 40 also checked my blood glucose.
I think they should have a disclaimer saying 'You've clicked on here to see if you're at risk - go see your doctor'.
I did not think to put in my old stats from when I was diagnosed. I would have been a 0/10. LOL1 -
C'mon, you know that's not how this works, you made the claim you provide the evidence.
You'll have to look.
Again, proof of this claim.I do know that carnivorous cultures like the Inuit and Masai have virtually no diabetes until they eat "western" refined and ultraprocessed foods.
Going to need to see some per reviewed research for this beauty.If you do not eat foods that do not spike blood glucose, you will not be diagnosed as diabetic.
Do you just make stuff up as you go along or is this from some keto propaganda website?And yes, I know there are cultures out there that are not meat based with almost no T2D. They are generally cultures without refined and ultraprocessed foods in their diets.
I've said this to you before, repeating something doesn't make it true. It's called argument by repeated assertion, it's a logical fallacy, usually used when you have nothing to back up your claims. And no, food choices are not definitely linked to T2D.Food choices are definitely linked to T2D
Hey, look, you finally got something right.as is genetics, lack of activity, age and obesity.
11 -
I am prediabet according to my doc and my blood work. This test gave me a 2/101
-
C'mon, you know that's not how this works, you made the claim you provide the evidence.
Again, proof of this claim.
Going to need to see some per reviewed research for this beauty.
Do you just make stuff up as you go along or is this from some keto propaganda website?
I've said this to you before, repeating something doesn't make it true. It's called argument by repeated assertion, it's a logical fallacy, usually used when you have nothing to back up your claims. And no, food choices are not definitely linked to T2D.
Hey, look, you finally got something right.
Hey - how about common senses? I eat meat and BG does not spike. I eat refined and ultra processed foods (that is carb based) and my BG rises. You are actually arguing against that? Do you have a peer reviewed study to say that is wrong? Common sense here.
I haven't even mentioned keto. I mentioned carbs for the first time just now. Read a little closer before arguing. An anti-keto argument is out of place here. My argument is coming from someone with insulin resistance, who can successfully treat the issue with food choices alone, and not from a "keto propaganda website".11 -
Hey - how about common senses? I eat meat and BG does not spike. I eat refined and ultra processed foods (that is carb based) and my BG rises. You are actually arguing against that? Do you have a peer reviewed study to say that is wrong? Common sense here.
I haven't even mentioned keto. I mentioned carbs for the first time just now. Read a little closer before arguing. An anti-keto argument is out of place here. My argument is coming from someone with insulin resistance, who can successfully treat the issue with food choices alone, and not from a "keto propaganda website".
I fast and my BG rises.
I exercise more than 20 minutes and my BG rises.
Should I avoid those things too? The issue is not if the BG rises, it is whether or not it falls. If your insulin response is appropriate, it will fall back to normal within 2 hours. If it doesn't fall enough, you have an issue.10 -
I'm all for common sense, but I am also for backing up baseless claims with something resembling proof, something you can't seem to ever do. And when you do its usually misinterpreted.
Hey - how about common senses?
Do you ever get tired of moving the goalposts so much? Please point out where you made this exact claim and where I questioned it. Seriously, anyone can scroll upthread and see what your exact claims were.I eat meat and BG does not spike. I eat refined and ultra processed foods (that is carb based) and my BG rises. You are actually arguing against that? Do you have a peer reviewed study to say that is wrong? Common sense here.
How about you read a little closer also. I never claimed you mentioned keto, I was wondering exactly where you came up with some of your still unsupported claims. Considering your history on here of pushing the keto party dogma it wouldn't be out of line to assume you may have read some of your unsupported claims on a keto website. Again, please point out exactly where I'm making an anti-keto argument.I haven't even mentioned keto. I mentioned carbs for the first time just now. Read a little closer before arguing. An anti-keto argument is out of place here.
This is an n=1 anecdote which doesn't prove anything. You haven't lost weight/maintain healthy weight since you've been diagnosed with IR? You don't exercise?My argument is coming from someone with insulin resistance, who can successfully treat the issue with food choices alone, and not from a "keto propaganda website".
So, I'm guessing you can't support any of your claims?
4 -
I fast and my BG rises.
I exercise more than 20 minutes and my BG rises.
Should I avoid those things too? The issue is not if the BG rises, it is whether or not it falls. If your insulin response is appropriate, it will fall back to normal within 2 hours. If it doesn't fall enough, you have an issue.
That rise is from gluconeogenesis. Generally not a worry unless it is excessively high. But you know that.
My BG response to food is delayed and then excessive. My BG 2 hours after eating is usually lower than before eating - especially if I have had refined ultraprocessed foods.5 -
I'm all for common sense, but I am also for backing up baseless claims with something resembling proof, something you can't seem to ever do. And when you do its usually misinterpreted.
Do you ever get tired of moving the goalposts so much? Please point out where you made this exact claim and where I questioned it. Seriously, anyone can scroll upthread and see what your exact claims were.
How about you read a little closer also. I never claimed you mentioned keto, I was wondering exactly where you came up with some of your still unsupported claims. Considering your history on here of pushing the keto party dogma it wouldn't be out of line to assume you may have read some of your unsupported claims on a keto website. Again, please point out exactly where I'm making an anti-keto argument.
This is an n=1 anecdote which doesn't prove anything. You haven't lost weight/maintain healthy weight since you've been diagnosed with IR? You don't exercise?
So, I'm guessing you can't support any of your claims?
I used to bother with links, years ago. It isn't worth the effort. If one is interested, they'll look for it.
And I moved the goalposts? This was about a quiz to test whether you have the risk factors for prediabetes. I mentioned that I was surprised that food choices were not mentioned since cultures who eat fewer refined and ultraprocessed foods tend not to have T2D, and then keto propaganda was brought up for some reason.
You said:
this was the first mention of low carb or keto...Do you just make stuff up as you go along or is this from some keto propaganda website?
And then you said:How about you read a little closer also. I never claimed you mentioned keto, I was wondering exactly where you came up with some of your still unsupported claims. Considering your history on here of pushing the keto party dogma it wouldn't be out of line to assume you may have read some of your unsupported claims on a keto website. Again, please point out exactly where I'm making an anti-keto argumentThis is an n=1 anecdote which doesn't prove anything. You haven't lost weight/maintain healthy weight since you've been diagnosed with IR? You don't exercise?
So, I'm guessing you can't support any of your claims?
I lost my extra weight (30 lbs), and am in the middle BMI range. I lost that weight close to 2 years ago and have maintained it. I do not exercise much due to rapidly progressing arthritis and bone spurs.
...But this has little to do with my mentioning that food choices can be linked to developing IR. If one is not producing excessive insulin, one generally does not become resistant to it.
I will bow out of this argument. I feel as though some people can not read my posts without a fair bit of bias colouring what they take in. I stated an opinion, and that opinion has not really been argued against - that food choices can be linked to developing prediabetes. I'll just leave it at that.8 -
That rise is from gluconeogenesis. Generally not a worry unless it is excessively high. But you know that.
My BG response to food is delayed and then excessive. My BG 2 hours after eating is usually lower than before eating - especially if I have had refined ultraprocessed foods.
All that is saying is that your body is functioning normally. Carbs that are low in fiber (hate, hate, hate the term "ultraprocessed" because it is meaningless concerning the macro and micro nutrients in the food) will cause a spike and fall in BG where carbs with fiber will cause a slow rise (not as high) and slow fall (not as low). Neither is bad or good (unless the drop puts a person into hypoglycemia). The important thing is the AVERAGE. I have highs over 200 BUT my average is around 110 which is really good.
7 -
3/10, and:Some of the risk factors that contribute to your risk for diabetes:
Age
As you get older, you're more likely to have prediabetes. While you can't stop the aging process, you can take steps to reduce your risk by staying active, eating a healthy diet, maintaining a healthy weight and keeping your blood pressure under control.
Well, one could, but I wouldn't advise it.6 -
All that is saying is that your body is functioning normally. Carbs that are low in fiber (hate, hate, hate the term "ultraprocessed" because it is meaningless concerning the macro and micro nutrients in the food) will cause a spike and fall in BG where carbs with fiber will cause a slow rise (not as high) and slow fall (not as low). Neither is bad or good (unless the drop puts a person into hypoglycemia). The important thing is the AVERAGE. I have highs over 200 BUT my average is around 110 which is really good.
Averages are definitely important, but I see very elevated BG as possibly damaging even when insulin is able to bring it back down relatively quickly.7 -
Averages are definitely important, but I see very elevated BG as possibly damaging even when insulin is able to bring it back down relatively quickly.
You might see it that way but the experts do not.5 -
Translation: I just make stuff up and have nothing to back it up. You'll just have to prove me wrong.
I used to bother with links, years ago. It isn't worth the effort. If one is interested, they'll look for it.
Try and keep up. You made the following baseless claims:And I moved the goalposts?The largely carnivorous person would be less likely to develop T2D than the person eating a diet high in refined carbs (which elevate BG eventually in most).I do know that carnivorous cultures like the Inuit and Masai have virtually no diabetes until they eat "western" refined and ultraprocessed foods.If you do not eat foods that do not spike blood glucose, you will not be diagnosed as diabetic.And yes, I know there are cultures out there that are not meat based with almost no T2D. They are generally cultures without refined and ultraprocessed foods in their diets.
And when pressed for any evidence to support any of these claims you moved the goalposts and also threw in a strawman kicker:Food choices are definitely linked to T2DI eat meat and BG does not spike. I eat refined and ultra processed foods (that is carb based) and my BG rises. You are actually arguing against that?
So asking for proof of baseless assertions is now considered being biased?I feel as though some people can not read my posts without a fair bit of bias colouring what they take in.
You have done a very poor job of supporting your opinion so why should anyone make an effort to argue against it? Again, repeating that food choices can be linked to developing prediabetes still doesn't make it true.I stated an opinion, and that opinion has not really been argued against - that food choices can be linked to developing prediabetes. I'll just leave it at that.
7 -
You might see it that way but the experts do not.
Many do. True. Among the experts, some thoughts on elevated BG is changing now. Time will tell more.13 -
I scored 2/10. I don't have prediabetes. I have full fledged diabetes.
It takes five seconds and a finger stick to learn your fasting blood glucose, skip breakfast before visiting your doctor and get it done.1 -
Well, the biggest factor is my age. After I lose two more pounds, my weight won't be a factor. As for the blood pressure, I have no idea what mine is.0
-
Lol at this test.
If I input my statistics from when my first A1C test returned a worrying some number, my risk level is low (3/10) - I was at a BMI of 40 at that time... I get tested every year because both my grandmothers had type 2, several of my aunts have it and two of my cousins started developing it in their 30s (including one who's physically active and not overweight - but in her case gestational diabetes might have had a hand in it).
Thankfully, my numbers were easily corrected by losing 35kg and getting active. It doesn't mean I'm safe from that particular disease since it seems to run in my family's genes.0 -
2/10... LOL yeah right. I DO have pre-diabetes (she said for type2). Was recently diagnosed. Ironically I'm a young adult, active, a size 0-2, low cholesterol, low triglycerides, and eat healthy. What's the point anymore
0 -
7/10 no surprise0
-
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »2/10... LOL yeah right. I DO have pre-diabetes (she said for type2). Was recently diagnosed. Ironically I'm a young adult, active, a size 0-2, low cholesterol, low triglycerides, and eat healthy. What's the point anymore
Low carb can help with BG numbers. My prediabetes was not weight related either, and low carb puts me back to really good numbers.2 -
I scored 2/10; my risk factors are age (41) and family history (both parents and a sister all have Type 2 diabetes).
I found out 4-5 years ago that I had prediabetes. At the time I was still struggling to lose the last 10 lbs of baby weight. I shifted from WW to a lower carb diet, lost 11 lbs and reversed the prediabetes. Blood work has continued to improve over time, thankfully, but it's something I stay mindful of! I had a BMI of 23 when I was diagnosed with prediabetes; my dad and his mom had never been overweight but both had Type 2.0 -
3/10, I assume because I'm 60+.
Surely only 2 of the factors mentioned are within our control (activity level and weight) and most of it we already know?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You know, for a guy who talks alot, you really don't say much do you. I mean at any point you could have just made your counter argument and backed it up with some factual reference.. but I notice you didn't
Excuse me? Exactly what in the world are you taking about? And where was this quote from? Have you heard the statement - that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence? If you had actually read this thread then you would have noticed the poster whom I was replying to supported none of her baseless assertions with science, I pressed her for evidence, she followed up with more baseless assertions. Therefore, no need for me to to supply references.0 -
Excuse me? Exactly what in the world are you taking about? And where was this quote from? Have you heard the statement - that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence? If you had actually read this thread then you would have noticed the poster whom I was replying to supported none of her baseless assertions with science, I pressed her for evidence, she followed up with more baseless assertions. Therefore, no need for me to to supply references.
Yeah there is even a word for that. Your just "trolling". Saying alot, but nothing to say. No point to make just want to argue. Good job. you win a whole internet.0 -
You might see it that way but the experts do not.
Actually, post prandial spikes are a better indication of long term complications than A1c, according to studies (which I am too lazy to look up right now, but you can use Google as well as I can.) The reason A1c has become the standard isn't that it's a better measure, it's that it quickly and cheaply gives a picture of glucose over three months, unlike frequently unreliable patient reporting.
Plus, diabetic post prandial spikes aren't the same as non diabetic spikes. Non-diabetics have an immediate insulin response which tends to keep blood sugar within range no matter how gratuitous the meal. A non-diabetic will not have a spike over 200 regardless of what they just ate. And blood glucose over 150 is damaging nerves RIGHT THEN. Maybe not much in two hours, but multiply two hours over thousands of meals and you end up with numb feet and sexual dysfunction in ten years.1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »
Actually, post prandial spikes are a better indication of long term complications than A1c, according to studies (which I am too lazy to look up right now, but you can use Google as well as I can.) The reason A1c has become the standard isn't that it's a better measure, it's that it quickly and cheaply gives a picture of glucose over three months, unlike frequently unreliable patient reporting.
Plus, diabetic post prandial spikes aren't the same as non diabetic spikes. Non-diabetics have an immediate insulin response which tends to keep blood sugar within range no matter how gratuitous the meal. A non-diabetic will not have a spike over 200 regardless of what they just ate. And blood glucose over 150 is damaging nerves RIGHT THEN. Maybe not much in two hours, but multiply two hours over thousands of meals and you end up with numb feet and sexual dysfunction in ten years.
This confused me initially because, where I come from, post prandial has an entirely different meaning
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 446 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions