Over 40% of US Adults have Insulin Resistance
Replies
-
i don't believe this is truly the case. i think what we're going to find, as medicine advances and the tests for thyroid conditions continue to improve, we're going to find that more and more people who truly struggle with weight loss have thyroid imbalances. it won't be nearly as rare as you think it is.In part it's a chicken and egg issue. Obesity-induced insulin resistance might make it a bit tougher to lose weight, but the way to alleviate this condition is to lose weight (and get off the couch and be more active). That said, there's a difference between a thyroid condition, PCOS and simply having some degree of obesity-induced insulin resistance. It's fine to say obesity-induced insulin makes it a bit more difficult to lose weight or that makes it so that certain macronutrient intakes work better for you than others - but that's akin to a mom saying it's more difficult for her to find time to workout because she has kids. It's an obstacle but it's one you can overcome if you really want to. PCOS and thyroid conditions can be more difficult obstacles to overcome, and I'm not trying to diminish the effort of people that have these conditions, but understand these are also much rarer conditions than suffering from some degree of obesity-induced insulin resistance.
our society is quick to judge the overweight, quick to blame and shame, quick to discriminate. but being overweight can sometimes be a symptom of another problem rather than a direct result. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that anyone who just doesn't want to put in the work of losing weight should jump on the "condishuns" bandwagon and add it to the santa's-naughty-list of excuses. but there comes a point when the mantras of "just try harder... just eat less" only hurt people rather than helping them.And yes, low carb diets might help somewhat for people with obesity-induced insulin resistance, but then again they might not. They may well help with satiation, but you might also end up having to cut out your favorite foods in the process. Some people are going to do better feeling satiated, while others may be willing to go a bit hungry on certain days if it means they can still eat "yummy carbs." In short, it's probably worth being aware of these things, but it doesn't really change your options at the end of the day.
making changes in life is all about willpower and determination, regardless of WHAT the changes are. if you continue to keep doing what you were doing before, you're only going to get the same results you got before. i don't care if it's weight loss or health or improving your grades or learning a new skill... each one of us has to decide for ourselves whether the end result is worth giving up the things that kept us stagnant. so what if you're giving up your favorite foods? you either create new favorites that are within your chosen way of eating, you find ways of modifying your favorite foods so that they ARE acceptable on your chosen way of eating, or you set those foods aside as "once in a blue moon" so that you don't fall into the same traps.
in our little MFP world, our willpower is focused on eating less and exercising more. but we also have to allow ourselves to understand that sometimes, willpower also means going through the research and tests and trial-and-error of medicine. for me, it's FAR harder to accept that i might not be able to do it all by myself, and that i might need medical help.
+10 -
I actually have insulin resistance, and that's why I started on MFP, to reduce it. I gotta say, a lot of doctors don't recognize it. I've been to many doctors in the past and they never even thought of it. I found out last year because my fertility doctor recognized some of the signs - I have acanthosis nigricans on the back of my neck, armpits and thighs, which is an unusual dark skin. I also have a fat roll overlapping my belly button, which she told me was because my body was storing my fat instead of using it - she said it accumulates in that area.
I DID have a lot of success with a lower carb diet (60 or 70 carbs a day), but I found it was almost impossible to keep up. So now I just try to do the best I can on a lower calorie deficit. Hopefully I'll be able to get some of my sensitivity back.
If it helps, some of the things I've done specifically to help with insulin sensitivity is (1) lifting heavy (some studies show this being as one of the best forms of exercise to increase insulin sensitivity -- also helps maintain as much LBM in a deficit) and (2) IFing (I opt for 5:2 plan and found it to be a great way to get my weekly deficit -- so much easier for me than traditional daily deficit -- and you get the added benefit of increased insulin sensitivity which was my main goal for trying it).
I've thought about if, how did you do it? What were your calories for the 5 days? The 2 days? If you don't mind sharing
Sure. The idea behind 5:2 is pretty easy. 2 non-consecutive days you eat 500 calories (or 25% of your TDEE if your TDEE is over 2000). You can space those out however you want. Some divide into two small meals. I prefer holding them all to dinner -- it's easier for me and it also means I have a full 24 hour fast (as I haven't eaten since dinner the night before). They suggest focusing on protein in particular for satiety, but it's not required. The other 5 days you eat at your TDEE.
I've found that often I don't eat as much as my TDEE on the other 5 days -- I'm just not hungry as much. I think the IFing has trained me to truly recognize hunger and TDEE days can feel quite indulgent.0 -
It's likely not "a handful of people" either.The estimates presented for undiagnosed populations were based on an NHANES survey and considered the results of fasting glucose or A1C tests - one result of one test. Anyone who has ever been pregnant and taken the gestational diabetes test knows that if you show up as positive on the first test, they bring you back in for a longer test before diagnosing you as having gestational diabetes.
Claiming that those population estimates are accurate based on one set of test results is flawed, not to mention that there are limitations to the tests themselves and factors that can impact the results. Those factors, particularly lifestyle factors, would not be accounted for in a survey, as most patients would not know to report those factors as possibly skewing their test results.
I just wanted to bump this post. A lot of the numbers in the OP are estimates. And just because you have prediabetes, doesn't mean you are full blow insulin resistant. I would also like point out, of that 30-35% estimated to have prediabets, about only 15% to 30% actually develop diabetes II.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html
There are a handful of people who have insulin resistance and it's real, but it's not 40% of our population has full blown insulin resistance. Those that are prediabetic can get their A1C back to normal with just weight loss, many of which don't even have to be concerned about carbs.
OP, i am sorry it took so long for you to discover your health issues, but your situation does not apply to the majority of the population. I understand your frustration, over the past 4 years, my wife has been in and out of 7+ different hospitals and dealt with a ton of specialist to include: Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Gastroenterologist, OBGYN's and Electrophysiologist for her medical conditions. She is borderline PCOS and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, so she has to be gluten free and low carb. Having said that, I do believe the majority of people can benefit from lowering their carbs, but that is merely for the fact that most people get too little protein in their diet.
More likely, it's not "the majority of the population".
Well, I guess if you consider a handful to be a huge part of the population -- well over 80 million adults -- then I guess those semantics could apply.
Why can't people on this site just discuss issues with a little intellectual honesty?
I think this site can have intellectual conversations. In fact, that is why I am participating. But in a population of billions in this world, 80 million is a small number.
Looking at this link: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html 29 million have diabetes (1 out of 11 people) and 86 milllion have prediabetes, of which 15-30% will develop diabetes (which translates to 25 million will ever have type II diabetes). So again, in a population of billions, that is a drop in the bucket.
Do I think it needs to be addressed, absolutely. Do i understand that people should be aware, absolutely. Do I think people may need to take alternate approach, absolutely, but I don't think people should diagnose themselves in that potential 40% based on the extrapolated statistics.0 -
Did someone say it was? The OP said about 40%.
It's likely not "a handful of people" either.The estimates presented for undiagnosed populations were based on an NHANES survey and considered the results of fasting glucose or A1C tests - one result of one test. Anyone who has ever been pregnant and taken the gestational diabetes test knows that if you show up as positive on the first test, they bring you back in for a longer test before diagnosing you as having gestational diabetes.
Claiming that those population estimates are accurate based on one set of test results is flawed, not to mention that there are limitations to the tests themselves and factors that can impact the results. Those factors, particularly lifestyle factors, would not be accounted for in a survey, as most patients would not know to report those factors as possibly skewing their test results.
I just wanted to bump this post. A lot of the numbers in the OP are estimates. And just because you have prediabetes, doesn't mean you are full blow insulin resistant. I would also like point out, of that 30-35% estimated to have prediabets, about only 15% to 30% actually develop diabetes II.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html
There are a handful of people who have insulin resistance and it's real, but it's not 40% of our population has full blown insulin resistance. Those that are prediabetic can get their A1C back to normal with just weight loss, many of which don't even have to be concerned about carbs.
OP, i am sorry it took so long for you to discover your health issues, but your situation does not apply to the majority of the population. I understand your frustration, over the past 4 years, my wife has been in and out of 7+ different hospitals and dealt with a ton of specialist to include: Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Gastroenterologist, OBGYN's and Electrophysiologist for her medical conditions. She is borderline PCOS and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, so she has to be gluten free and low carb. Having said that, I do believe the majority of people can benefit from lowering their carbs, but that is merely for the fact that most people get too little protein in their diet.
More likely, it's not "the majority of the population".
In 2010, it was 43.3% to be exact. In 2012, the numbers have increased, but I don't know if they've gone over 50% (I don't think so).
I just posited the idea that if it's 43.3% of the TOTAL US adult population (i.e. those that are normal weight, under weight, overweight and obese -- and 69% of the population is overweight or obese), then it's not a stretch to think that a majority of overweight/obese US adults have insulin resistance since it contributes to weight gain and makes it more difficult to lose/maintain a healthy weight.0 -
I said deficit more than once and that lower carbs are more satiating for some which can help.......you only read what you want to then get all uppity........have a donut and chill.
You use obtuse and cutting off limbs in the same message and ask if I don't understand that ? What, weather cutting off limbs is a good strategy........yoy. It's all or nothing.....I love MFP, it's fun.
I said exercise and weight loss......you promote whatever you want, I'll stick to that.
Metabolic disorders are accounted for in the energy balance equation....granted it may be harder for some people to figure out their calorie maintenance but a calorie deficit and exercise is the best course of action.....and of course reducing carbs if someone was a carb freak would help promote the effects of a diet higher in protein and fat....which is satiation, which allows to deal easier and more effectively with a deficit, not rocket cooking.Exercise and weight loss are key.......even if people don't reduce their carbs both of these will make people more insulin sensitive......
True, true. But it can be difficult to lose the weight without the proper diet -- and for many people that means reducing carbs. They say abs are made in the kitchen for a reason -- you can't out exercise a bad diet, and that's even a bigger issue for those with insulin resistance more often than not.
That's simply wrong. If creating a calorie deficit gets into an unsafe amount of total calories, it is not a good solution for such things AT ALL. Once you get below a certain threshold of daily calories, it can be quite dangerous, especially for those with metabolic disorders.
The solution to metabolic disorders is NOT to eat less necessarily. It's to figure out what you need to do as a person with such a disorder (to even know if you have it) to maintain a healthy weight. If you have to sleep 14+ hours to combat the fatigue from your abnormal metabolism's inability to effectively metabolize food, that's not a meaningful or viable solution. Nor should it me.
Telling people with insulin resistance, thyroid disorder, PCOS, etc. to simply keep cutting calories not a healthy solution AT ALL. And can be downright dangerous for some.
Sure but diet is ESSENTIAL to the weight loss equation in a healthy manner. You could cut off a leg and lose weight, but not exactly a good strategy to combat general weight/fat loss or insulin resistance.
Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you just not understand that?
No, that's sarcasm. Only on MFP can people ignore the importance of diet in weight loss, and then state that they'll stick to that. Well done. Thanks for playing.
Well, it appears to me that you're intentionally obscuring important facts. Why? I don't know. Perhaps it makes you feel better about yourself. Keep the donut.0 -
It's likely not "a handful of people" either.The estimates presented for undiagnosed populations were based on an NHANES survey and considered the results of fasting glucose or A1C tests - one result of one test. Anyone who has ever been pregnant and taken the gestational diabetes test knows that if you show up as positive on the first test, they bring you back in for a longer test before diagnosing you as having gestational diabetes.
Claiming that those population estimates are accurate based on one set of test results is flawed, not to mention that there are limitations to the tests themselves and factors that can impact the results. Those factors, particularly lifestyle factors, would not be accounted for in a survey, as most patients would not know to report those factors as possibly skewing their test results.
I just wanted to bump this post. A lot of the numbers in the OP are estimates. And just because you have prediabetes, doesn't mean you are full blow insulin resistant. I would also like point out, of that 30-35% estimated to have prediabets, about only 15% to 30% actually develop diabetes II.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html
There are a handful of people who have insulin resistance and it's real, but it's not 40% of our population has full blown insulin resistance. Those that are prediabetic can get their A1C back to normal with just weight loss, many of which don't even have to be concerned about carbs.
OP, i am sorry it took so long for you to discover your health issues, but your situation does not apply to the majority of the population. I understand your frustration, over the past 4 years, my wife has been in and out of 7+ different hospitals and dealt with a ton of specialist to include: Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Gastroenterologist, OBGYN's and Electrophysiologist for her medical conditions. She is borderline PCOS and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, so she has to be gluten free and low carb. Having said that, I do believe the majority of people can benefit from lowering their carbs, but that is merely for the fact that most people get too little protein in their diet.
More likely, it's not "the majority of the population".
Well, I guess if you consider a handful to be a huge part of the population -- well over 80 million adults -- then I guess those semantics could apply.
Why can't people on this site just discuss issues with a little intellectual honesty?
I think this site can have intellectual conversations. In fact, that is why I am participating. But in a population of billions in this world, 80 million is a small number.
Looking at this link: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html 29 million have diabetes (1 out of 11 people) and 86 milllion have prediabetes, of which 15-30% will develop diabetes (which translates to 25 million will ever have type II diabetes). So again, in a population of billions, that is a drop in the bucket.
Do I think it needs to be addressed, absolutely. Do i understand that people should be aware, absolutely. Do I think people may need to take alternate approach, absolutely, but I don't think people should diagnose themselves in that potential 40% based on the extrapolated statistics.
Is this an example of intellectual honesty?
Yes, I'm sure if you start counting martians, 80 million will look even less impressive.
The facts are that in the US, there are 115 MILLION adults with this issue. That's nearly HALF of all adults in the US. Yes, total drop in the bucket. We shouldn't pay attention at all. Something that affects half of Americans -- totally unimportant.
Excellent example of intellectual honesty.
I'm not saying people should diagnosis them. But many posters on this site repeatedly tell people that metabolic disorders are very rare. And that's simply not true. There may be very legitimate reasons people are struggling to lose weight or maintain weight. Since the vast majority of people fail to keep the weight off after 5-10 years, this seems to be an even bigger problem. And maybe if we could have intellectually honest conversations, people that need this information could get it and find a better way for themselves. Or we can continue to dismiss and diminish -- which serves no one, except the forces that are invested in weight loss schemes and wanting people to eat more.0 -
It's likely not "a handful of people" either.The estimates presented for undiagnosed populations were based on an NHANES survey and considered the results of fasting glucose or A1C tests - one result of one test. Anyone who has ever been pregnant and taken the gestational diabetes test knows that if you show up as positive on the first test, they bring you back in for a longer test before diagnosing you as having gestational diabetes.
Claiming that those population estimates are accurate based on one set of test results is flawed, not to mention that there are limitations to the tests themselves and factors that can impact the results. Those factors, particularly lifestyle factors, would not be accounted for in a survey, as most patients would not know to report those factors as possibly skewing their test results.
I just wanted to bump this post. A lot of the numbers in the OP are estimates. And just because you have prediabetes, doesn't mean you are full blow insulin resistant. I would also like point out, of that 30-35% estimated to have prediabets, about only 15% to 30% actually develop diabetes II.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html
There are a handful of people who have insulin resistance and it's real, but it's not 40% of our population has full blown insulin resistance. Those that are prediabetic can get their A1C back to normal with just weight loss, many of which don't even have to be concerned about carbs.
OP, i am sorry it took so long for you to discover your health issues, but your situation does not apply to the majority of the population. I understand your frustration, over the past 4 years, my wife has been in and out of 7+ different hospitals and dealt with a ton of specialist to include: Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Gastroenterologist, OBGYN's and Electrophysiologist for her medical conditions. She is borderline PCOS and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, so she has to be gluten free and low carb. Having said that, I do believe the majority of people can benefit from lowering their carbs, but that is merely for the fact that most people get too little protein in their diet.
More likely, it's not "the majority of the population".
Well, I guess if you consider a handful to be a huge part of the population -- well over 80 million adults -- then I guess those semantics could apply.
Why can't people on this site just discuss issues with a little intellectual honesty?
:huh: I imagine for the same reason you are willfully ignoring the points made above about the flaws in the methodology for collecting the data that the estimates, and your entire argument, are based upon.
Here is how the NHANES survey data is collected:The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is one of a series of health-related programs conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). A unique feature of this survey is the collection of health examination data for a nationally representative sample of the resident, civilian noninstitutionalized U.S. population. The survey consists of questionnaires administered in the home, followed by a standardized health examination in specially equipped mobile examination centers (MECs).
So the estimates you are claiming are accurate are based on self-reported data surveys and ONE physical exam. Any doctor will tell you that a positive result on ONE test at ONE point in time is not enough to make an accurate diagnosis or even indicative that a larger problem exists in that one individual, let alone an entire population.0 -
Did someone say it was? The OP said about 40%.
It's likely not "a handful of people" either.The estimates presented for undiagnosed populations were based on an NHANES survey and considered the results of fasting glucose or A1C tests - one result of one test. Anyone who has ever been pregnant and taken the gestational diabetes test knows that if you show up as positive on the first test, they bring you back in for a longer test before diagnosing you as having gestational diabetes.
Claiming that those population estimates are accurate based on one set of test results is flawed, not to mention that there are limitations to the tests themselves and factors that can impact the results. Those factors, particularly lifestyle factors, would not be accounted for in a survey, as most patients would not know to report those factors as possibly skewing their test results.
I just wanted to bump this post. A lot of the numbers in the OP are estimates. And just because you have prediabetes, doesn't mean you are full blow insulin resistant. I would also like point out, of that 30-35% estimated to have prediabets, about only 15% to 30% actually develop diabetes II.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html
There are a handful of people who have insulin resistance and it's real, but it's not 40% of our population has full blown insulin resistance. Those that are prediabetic can get their A1C back to normal with just weight loss, many of which don't even have to be concerned about carbs.
OP, i am sorry it took so long for you to discover your health issues, but your situation does not apply to the majority of the population. I understand your frustration, over the past 4 years, my wife has been in and out of 7+ different hospitals and dealt with a ton of specialist to include: Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Gastroenterologist, OBGYN's and Electrophysiologist for her medical conditions. She is borderline PCOS and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, so she has to be gluten free and low carb. Having said that, I do believe the majority of people can benefit from lowering their carbs, but that is merely for the fact that most people get too little protein in their diet.
More likely, it's not "the majority of the population".
In 2010, it was 43.3% to be exact. In 2012, the numbers have increased, but I don't know if they've gone over 50% (I don't think so).
I just posited the idea that if it's 43.3% of the TOTAL US adult population (i.e. those that are normal weight, under weight, overweight and obese -- and 69% of the population is overweight or obese), then it's not a stretch to think that a majority of overweight/obese US adults have insulin resistance since it contributes to weight gain and makes it more difficult to lose/maintain a healthy weight.
I would agree that it's likely that, in the US, and taking these numbers as a fact, that it's likely that more than half of the obese people in this country have SOME level of insulin resistance. Probably as a direct result of the obesity and likely to be eliminated if they return to a lower weight.
On the other thread, it was suggested that "moderation" might not be appropriate for people just starting weight loss, for this reason. Cutting out high glycemic foods might be necessary until the metabolism returns to more normal parameters.
It's a good question and a good discussion.0 -
Well, I guess if you consider a handful to be a huge part of the population -- well over 80 million adults -- then I guess those semantics could apply.
Why can't people on this site just discuss issues with a little intellectual honesty?
:huh: I imagine for the same reason you are willfully ignoring the points made above about the flaws in the methodology for collecting the data that the estimates, and your entire argument, are based upon.
Here is how the NHANES survey data is collected:The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is one of a series of health-related programs conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). A unique feature of this survey is the collection of health examination data for a nationally representative sample of the resident, civilian noninstitutionalized U.S. population. The survey consists of questionnaires administered in the home, followed by a standardized health examination in specially equipped mobile examination centers (MECs).
So the estimates you are claiming are accurate are based on self-reported data surveys and ONE physical exam. Any doctor will tell you that a positive result on ONE test at ONE point in time is not enough to make an accurate diagnosis or even indicative that a larger problem exists in that one individual, let alone an entire population.
So you're claiming that the American Diabetes Association is wrong?
Hey, you're free to do so. I don't know if the numbers are perfect, but I feel pretty safe in the conclusion that it's a BIG problem, whether it's 43.3% or 33% of US adults. And that is also reflected in the obscene amount of US adults that are overweight/obese -- 69%. But, maybe the CDC is wrong on that too.
Now, if you think there is a fundamental flaw where it should really be 4% or something of that magnitude, please explain. But, as with other posters on this site, you seem more interested in obscuring important information with peripheral details.0 -
Zealots often think other people are obscuring important facts.....maybe you just like the sound of your voice better than anyone else....who know.....keep up the good work.
I said deficit more than once and that lower carbs are more satiating for some which can help.......you only read what you want to then get all uppity........have a donut and chill.
You use obtuse and cutting off limbs in the same message and ask if I don't understand that ? What, weather cutting off limbs is a good strategy........yoy. It's all or nothing.....I love MFP, it's fun.
I said exercise and weight loss......you promote whatever you want, I'll stick to that.
Metabolic disorders are accounted for in the energy balance equation....granted it may be harder for some people to figure out their calorie maintenance but a calorie deficit and exercise is the best course of action.....and of course reducing carbs if someone was a carb freak would help promote the effects of a diet higher in protein and fat....which is satiation, which allows to deal easier and more effectively with a deficit, not rocket cooking.Exercise and weight loss are key.......even if people don't reduce their carbs both of these will make people more insulin sensitive......
True, true. But it can be difficult to lose the weight without the proper diet -- and for many people that means reducing carbs. They say abs are made in the kitchen for a reason -- you can't out exercise a bad diet, and that's even a bigger issue for those with insulin resistance more often than not.
That's simply wrong. If creating a calorie deficit gets into an unsafe amount of total calories, it is not a good solution for such things AT ALL. Once you get below a certain threshold of daily calories, it can be quite dangerous, especially for those with metabolic disorders.
The solution to metabolic disorders is NOT to eat less necessarily. It's to figure out what you need to do as a person with such a disorder (to even know if you have it) to maintain a healthy weight. If you have to sleep 14+ hours to combat the fatigue from your abnormal metabolism's inability to effectively metabolize food, that's not a meaningful or viable solution. Nor should it me.
Telling people with insulin resistance, thyroid disorder, PCOS, etc. to simply keep cutting calories not a healthy solution AT ALL. And can be downright dangerous for some.
Sure but diet is ESSENTIAL to the weight loss equation in a healthy manner. You could cut off a leg and lose weight, but not exactly a good strategy to combat general weight/fat loss or insulin resistance.
Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you just not understand that?
No, that's sarcasm. Only on MFP can people ignore the importance of diet in weight loss, and then state that they'll stick to that. Well done. Thanks for playing.
Well, it appears to me that you're intentionally obscuring important facts. Why? I don't know. Perhaps it makes you feel better about yourself. Keep the donut.0 -
Her numbers are for the U.S. Not the world. Eobla deaths, malaria deaths, AIDS deaths, are a drop in the bucket when put against world populations. But not in the context of their communities.
It's likely not "a handful of people" either.The estimates presented for undiagnosed populations were based on an NHANES survey and considered the results of fasting glucose or A1C tests - one result of one test. Anyone who has ever been pregnant and taken the gestational diabetes test knows that if you show up as positive on the first test, they bring you back in for a longer test before diagnosing you as having gestational diabetes.
Claiming that those population estimates are accurate based on one set of test results is flawed, not to mention that there are limitations to the tests themselves and factors that can impact the results. Those factors, particularly lifestyle factors, would not be accounted for in a survey, as most patients would not know to report those factors as possibly skewing their test results.
I just wanted to bump this post. A lot of the numbers in the OP are estimates. And just because you have prediabetes, doesn't mean you are full blow insulin resistant. I would also like point out, of that 30-35% estimated to have prediabets, about only 15% to 30% actually develop diabetes II.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html
There are a handful of people who have insulin resistance and it's real, but it's not 40% of our population has full blown insulin resistance. Those that are prediabetic can get their A1C back to normal with just weight loss, many of which don't even have to be concerned about carbs.
OP, i am sorry it took so long for you to discover your health issues, but your situation does not apply to the majority of the population. I understand your frustration, over the past 4 years, my wife has been in and out of 7+ different hospitals and dealt with a ton of specialist to include: Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Gastroenterologist, OBGYN's and Electrophysiologist for her medical conditions. She is borderline PCOS and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, so she has to be gluten free and low carb. Having said that, I do believe the majority of people can benefit from lowering their carbs, but that is merely for the fact that most people get too little protein in their diet.
More likely, it's not "the majority of the population".
Well, I guess if you consider a handful to be a huge part of the population -- well over 80 million adults -- then I guess those semantics could apply.
Why can't people on this site just discuss issues with a little intellectual honesty?
I think this site can have intellectual conversations. In fact, that is why I am participating. But in a population of billions in this world, 80 million is a small number.
Looking at this link: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html 29 million have diabetes (1 out of 11 people) and 86 milllion have prediabetes, of which 15-30% will develop diabetes (which translates to 25 million will ever have type II diabetes). So again, in a population of billions, that is a drop in the bucket.
Do I think it needs to be addressed, absolutely. Do i understand that people should be aware, absolutely. Do I think people may need to take alternate approach, absolutely, but I don't think people should diagnose themselves in that potential 40% based on the extrapolated statistics.
It's a bit alarming how fast obesity rates have rise IN THE U.S. in MY LIFETIME, and how fast the related illnesses rose as well. I recently read that the expected lifespan of Americans is actually decreasing.
What's the answer? Eat less, move more?0 -
Well, I guess if you consider a handful to be a huge part of the population -- well over 80 million adults -- then I guess those semantics could apply.
Why can't people on this site just discuss issues with a little intellectual honesty?
:huh: I imagine for the same reason you are willfully ignoring the points made above about the flaws in the methodology for collecting the data that the estimates, and your entire argument, are based upon.
Here is how the NHANES survey data is collected:The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is one of a series of health-related programs conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). A unique feature of this survey is the collection of health examination data for a nationally representative sample of the resident, civilian noninstitutionalized U.S. population. The survey consists of questionnaires administered in the home, followed by a standardized health examination in specially equipped mobile examination centers (MECs).
So the estimates you are claiming are accurate are based on self-reported data surveys and ONE physical exam. Any doctor will tell you that a positive result on ONE test at ONE point in time is not enough to make an accurate diagnosis or even indicative that a larger problem exists in that one individual, let alone an entire population.
So you're claiming that the American Diabetes Association is wrong?
Hey, you're free to do so. I don't know if the numbers are perfect, but I feel pretty safe in the conclusion that it's a BIG problem, whether it's 43.3% or 33% of US adults. And that is also reflected in the obscene amount of US adults that are overweight/obese -- 69%. But, maybe the CDC is wrong on that too.
Now, if you think there is a fundamental flaw where it should really be 4% or something of that magnitude, please explain. But, as with other posters on this site, you seem more interested in obscuring important information with peripheral details.
At least...it could have been a good discussion.0 -
That would be a good thing to start with
Her numbers are for the U.S. Not the world. Eobla deaths, malaria deaths, AIDS deaths, are a drop in the bucket when put against world populations. But not in the context of their communities.
It's likely not "a handful of people" either.The estimates presented for undiagnosed populations were based on an NHANES survey and considered the results of fasting glucose or A1C tests - one result of one test. Anyone who has ever been pregnant and taken the gestational diabetes test knows that if you show up as positive on the first test, they bring you back in for a longer test before diagnosing you as having gestational diabetes.
Claiming that those population estimates are accurate based on one set of test results is flawed, not to mention that there are limitations to the tests themselves and factors that can impact the results. Those factors, particularly lifestyle factors, would not be accounted for in a survey, as most patients would not know to report those factors as possibly skewing their test results.
I just wanted to bump this post. A lot of the numbers in the OP are estimates. And just because you have prediabetes, doesn't mean you are full blow insulin resistant. I would also like point out, of that 30-35% estimated to have prediabets, about only 15% to 30% actually develop diabetes II.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html
There are a handful of people who have insulin resistance and it's real, but it's not 40% of our population has full blown insulin resistance. Those that are prediabetic can get their A1C back to normal with just weight loss, many of which don't even have to be concerned about carbs.
OP, i am sorry it took so long for you to discover your health issues, but your situation does not apply to the majority of the population. I understand your frustration, over the past 4 years, my wife has been in and out of 7+ different hospitals and dealt with a ton of specialist to include: Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Gastroenterologist, OBGYN's and Electrophysiologist for her medical conditions. She is borderline PCOS and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, so she has to be gluten free and low carb. Having said that, I do believe the majority of people can benefit from lowering their carbs, but that is merely for the fact that most people get too little protein in their diet.
More likely, it's not "the majority of the population".
Well, I guess if you consider a handful to be a huge part of the population -- well over 80 million adults -- then I guess those semantics could apply.
Why can't people on this site just discuss issues with a little intellectual honesty?
I think this site can have intellectual conversations. In fact, that is why I am participating. But in a population of billions in this world, 80 million is a small number.
Looking at this link: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html 29 million have diabetes (1 out of 11 people) and 86 milllion have prediabetes, of which 15-30% will develop diabetes (which translates to 25 million will ever have type II diabetes). So again, in a population of billions, that is a drop in the bucket.
Do I think it needs to be addressed, absolutely. Do i understand that people should be aware, absolutely. Do I think people may need to take alternate approach, absolutely, but I don't think people should diagnose themselves in that potential 40% based on the extrapolated statistics.
It's a bit alarming how fast obesity rates have rise IN THE U.S. in MY LIFETIME, and how fast the related illnesses rose as well. I recently read that the expected lifespan of Americans is actually decreasing.
What's the answer? Eat less, move more?0 -
I said deficit more than once and that lower carbs are more satiating for some which can help.......you only read what you want to then get all uppity........have a donut and chill.
You use obtuse and cutting off limbs in the same message and ask if I don't understand that ? What, weather cutting off limbs is a good strategy........yoy. It's all or nothing.....I love MFP, it's fun.Sure but diet is ESSENTIAL to the weight loss equation in a healthy manner. You could cut off a leg and lose weight, but not exactly a good strategy to combat general weight/fat loss or insulin resistance.
Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you just not understand that?
No, that's sarcasm. Only on MFP can people ignore the importance of diet in weight loss, and then state that they'll stick to that. Well done. Thanks for playing.
Well, it appears to me that you're intentionally obscuring important facts. Why? I don't know. Perhaps it makes you feel better about yourself. Keep the donut.
[/quote]Zealots often think other people are obscuring important facts.....maybe you just like the sound of your voice better than anyone else....who know.....keep up the good work.
[/quote]
Yes, because the information I'm trying to get out there is so radical. That a lot of Americans are overweight/obese, a lot of Americans have insulin resistance. For those with IR, there may be more effective ways to combat it and lose/maintain weight -- like exercise and reducing carbs rather than just a mere caloric deficit. Crazy radical.0 -
Zealots often think other people are obscuring important facts.....maybe you just like the sound of your voice better than anyone else....who know.....keep up the good work.
I said deficit more than once and that lower carbs are more satiating for some which can help.......you only read what you want to then get all uppity........have a donut and chill.
You use obtuse and cutting off limbs in the same message and ask if I don't understand that ? What, weather cutting off limbs is a good strategy........yoy. It's all or nothing.....I love MFP, it's fun.Sure but diet is ESSENTIAL to the weight loss equation in a healthy manner. You could cut off a leg and lose weight, but not exactly a good strategy to combat general weight/fat loss or insulin resistance.
Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you just not understand that?
No, that's sarcasm. Only on MFP can people ignore the importance of diet in weight loss, and then state that they'll stick to that. Well done. Thanks for playing.
Well, it appears to me that you're intentionally obscuring important facts. Why? I don't know. Perhaps it makes you feel better about yourself. Keep the donut.
Yes, because the information I'm trying to get out there is so radical. That a lot of Americans are overweight/obese, a lot of Americans have insulin resistance. For those with IR, there may be more effective ways to combat it and lose/maintain weight -- like exercise and reducing carbs rather than just a mere caloric deficit. Crazy radical.
[/quote]0 -
How about eating better? Does that have a role?
That would be a good thing to start with
Her numbers are for the U.S. Not the world. Eobla deaths, malaria deaths, AIDS deaths, are a drop in the bucket when put against world populations. But not in the context of their communities.
It's likely not "a handful of people" either.The estimates presented for undiagnosed populations were based on an NHANES survey and considered the results of fasting glucose or A1C tests - one result of one test. Anyone who has ever been pregnant and taken the gestational diabetes test knows that if you show up as positive on the first test, they bring you back in for a longer test before diagnosing you as having gestational diabetes.
Claiming that those population estimates are accurate based on one set of test results is flawed, not to mention that there are limitations to the tests themselves and factors that can impact the results. Those factors, particularly lifestyle factors, would not be accounted for in a survey, as most patients would not know to report those factors as possibly skewing their test results.
I just wanted to bump this post. A lot of the numbers in the OP are estimates. And just because you have prediabetes, doesn't mean you are full blow insulin resistant. I would also like point out, of that 30-35% estimated to have prediabets, about only 15% to 30% actually develop diabetes II.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html
There are a handful of people who have insulin resistance and it's real, but it's not 40% of our population has full blown insulin resistance. Those that are prediabetic can get their A1C back to normal with just weight loss, many of which don't even have to be concerned about carbs.
OP, i am sorry it took so long for you to discover your health issues, but your situation does not apply to the majority of the population. I understand your frustration, over the past 4 years, my wife has been in and out of 7+ different hospitals and dealt with a ton of specialist to include: Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Gastroenterologist, OBGYN's and Electrophysiologist for her medical conditions. She is borderline PCOS and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, so she has to be gluten free and low carb. Having said that, I do believe the majority of people can benefit from lowering their carbs, but that is merely for the fact that most people get too little protein in their diet.
More likely, it's not "the majority of the population".
Well, I guess if you consider a handful to be a huge part of the population -- well over 80 million adults -- then I guess those semantics could apply.
Why can't people on this site just discuss issues with a little intellectual honesty?
I think this site can have intellectual conversations. In fact, that is why I am participating. But in a population of billions in this world, 80 million is a small number.
Looking at this link: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html 29 million have diabetes (1 out of 11 people) and 86 milllion have prediabetes, of which 15-30% will develop diabetes (which translates to 25 million will ever have type II diabetes). So again, in a population of billions, that is a drop in the bucket.
Do I think it needs to be addressed, absolutely. Do i understand that people should be aware, absolutely. Do I think people may need to take alternate approach, absolutely, but I don't think people should diagnose themselves in that potential 40% based on the extrapolated statistics.
It's a bit alarming how fast obesity rates have rise IN THE U.S. in MY LIFETIME, and how fast the related illnesses rose as well. I recently read that the expected lifespan of Americans is actually decreasing.
What's the answer? Eat less, move more?0 -
Lies damm lies and and statistics0
-
How about eating better? Does that have a role?
That would be a good thing to start with
Her numbers are for the U.S. Not the world. Eobla deaths, malaria deaths, AIDS deaths, are a drop in the bucket when put against world populations. But not in the context of their communities.
It's likely not "a handful of people" either.The estimates presented for undiagnosed populations were based on an NHANES survey and considered the results of fasting glucose or A1C tests - one result of one test. Anyone who has ever been pregnant and taken the gestational diabetes test knows that if you show up as positive on the first test, they bring you back in for a longer test before diagnosing you as having gestational diabetes.
Claiming that those population estimates are accurate based on one set of test results is flawed, not to mention that there are limitations to the tests themselves and factors that can impact the results. Those factors, particularly lifestyle factors, would not be accounted for in a survey, as most patients would not know to report those factors as possibly skewing their test results.
I just wanted to bump this post. A lot of the numbers in the OP are estimates. And just because you have prediabetes, doesn't mean you are full blow insulin resistant. I would also like point out, of that 30-35% estimated to have prediabets, about only 15% to 30% actually develop diabetes II.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html
There are a handful of people who have insulin resistance and it's real, but it's not 40% of our population has full blown insulin resistance. Those that are prediabetic can get their A1C back to normal with just weight loss, many of which don't even have to be concerned about carbs.
OP, i am sorry it took so long for you to discover your health issues, but your situation does not apply to the majority of the population. I understand your frustration, over the past 4 years, my wife has been in and out of 7+ different hospitals and dealt with a ton of specialist to include: Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Gastroenterologist, OBGYN's and Electrophysiologist for her medical conditions. She is borderline PCOS and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, so she has to be gluten free and low carb. Having said that, I do believe the majority of people can benefit from lowering their carbs, but that is merely for the fact that most people get too little protein in their diet.
More likely, it's not "the majority of the population".
Well, I guess if you consider a handful to be a huge part of the population -- well over 80 million adults -- then I guess those semantics could apply.
Why can't people on this site just discuss issues with a little intellectual honesty?
I think this site can have intellectual conversations. In fact, that is why I am participating. But in a population of billions in this world, 80 million is a small number.
Looking at this link: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html 29 million have diabetes (1 out of 11 people) and 86 milllion have prediabetes, of which 15-30% will develop diabetes (which translates to 25 million will ever have type II diabetes). So again, in a population of billions, that is a drop in the bucket.
Do I think it needs to be addressed, absolutely. Do i understand that people should be aware, absolutely. Do I think people may need to take alternate approach, absolutely, but I don't think people should diagnose themselves in that potential 40% based on the extrapolated statistics.
It's a bit alarming how fast obesity rates have rise IN THE U.S. in MY LIFETIME, and how fast the related illnesses rose as well. I recently read that the expected lifespan of Americans is actually decreasing.
What's the answer? Eat less, move more?
Well, define "better"
If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?0 -
i don't believe this is truly the case. i think what we're going to find, as medicine advances and the tests for thyroid conditions continue to improve, we're going to find that more and more people who truly struggle with weight loss have thyroid imbalances. it won't be nearly as rare as you think it is.
our society is quick to judge the overweight, quick to blame and shame, quick to discriminate. but being overweight can sometimes be a symptom of another problem rather than a direct result. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that anyone who just doesn't want to put in the work of losing weight should jump on the "condishuns" bandwagon and add it to the santa's-naughty-list of excuses. but there comes a point when the mantras of "just try harder... just eat less" only hurt people rather than helping them.
So is your theory that the escalation in obesity we've seen over the past few decades only in certain countries throughout the world is due to people in those specific countries having an increased rate of thyroid conditions? What's the cause of certain countries seeing an increase in undiagnosed thyroid conditions when others aren't? Isn't it a bit odd that that dietary caloric intake has gone up and activity levels have gone down during this time period when the undiagnosed thyroid conditions were causing all these problems?
no. that's not what i meant. the increase in obesity rates can easily and obviously be linked to the changes made to the standard american diet. in short, we started vilifying fats and claiming that carbohydrates and whole grains were the holy grail of nutrition. add that to increases in food portion sizes from restaurants (the idea of "supersizing" fast food didn't exist when i was a kid), and having kids that sit inside in front of a screen rather than spending dawn till dusk outside playing, and you get a population with an ever-expanding waistline.
but along with that explosion of the obesity rates, we also see a growing portion of the population for whom the standard advice on weight loss is not working. we are quick to blame them for being lazy rather than ask WHY it's not working. with improvements in the testing procedures and better analysis of what the levels mean, we can see that the underlying issues are medical rather than an unwillingness to get off the couch. am i saying that this is the solution for the majority of the population? of course not. but i think what we WILL see is an increase in percentages, maybe going from the low single-digits to possibly low double-digits.A bit of sarcasm aside, I'm not saying some people don't have medical conditions. But if you do, get it diagnosed and treated. The societal trends we've seen with respect to obesity are not due to a rampant increase in thyroid problems. Rather, they're due to changes in diet and exercise (or lack thereof), due to societal trends towards larger portions, abundant access to inexpensive, calorically dense foods, more time spent in front of the TV/computer, less time spent walking and doing physical activity and so on. If you have a medical condition you need to get it treated, but for most people "just try harder... just eat less" is spot on.
remember, though... our first instinct is to blame the dieter when the diet fails. i see it here every single day... we get multiple posts by people who are frustrated because they're not losing weight. the knee-jerk answers are always "you're not measuring correctly" or "you're overestimating what you eat" or "you're not exercising enough." for some, yes that's the answer. but even when the person says "here's my diary, here's my exercise schedule, why is this not working", people are quick to give the easy, canned answer.
i don't know about you, but i find it incredibly insulting and demoralizing when i say "here's what i'm doing, i'm doing what everyone says is "right", why is this not working?" and i get an answer that equates to " oh it's easy, just eat less and move more. it was easy for me so therefore you're just making excuses and don't really want this badly enough." there are only a few, scattered souls who have the knowledge, the patience, and the compassion to step up and say "ok... let's try some other tactics. have you seen a doctor and discussed these specific topics?"0 -
Eating fewer refined carbohydrates (which tend to be calorically dense, and nutritionally lacking, and have a high glycemic impact and load) seems smart place to start and smart all around.
How about eating better? Does that have a role?
That would be a good thing to start with
Her numbers are for the U.S. Not the world. Eobla deaths, malaria deaths, AIDS deaths, are a drop in the bucket when put against world populations. But not in the context of their communities.
It's likely not "a handful of people" either.The estimates presented for undiagnosed populations were based on an NHANES survey and considered the results of fasting glucose or A1C tests - one result of one test. Anyone who has ever been pregnant and taken the gestational diabetes test knows that if you show up as positive on the first test, they bring you back in for a longer test before diagnosing you as having gestational diabetes.
Claiming that those population estimates are accurate based on one set of test results is flawed, not to mention that there are limitations to the tests themselves and factors that can impact the results. Those factors, particularly lifestyle factors, would not be accounted for in a survey, as most patients would not know to report those factors as possibly skewing their test results.
I just wanted to bump this post. A lot of the numbers in the OP are estimates. And just because you have prediabetes, doesn't mean you are full blow insulin resistant. I would also like point out, of that 30-35% estimated to have prediabets, about only 15% to 30% actually develop diabetes II.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html
There are a handful of people who have insulin resistance and it's real, but it's not 40% of our population has full blown insulin resistance. Those that are prediabetic can get their A1C back to normal with just weight loss, many of which don't even have to be concerned about carbs.
OP, i am sorry it took so long for you to discover your health issues, but your situation does not apply to the majority of the population. I understand your frustration, over the past 4 years, my wife has been in and out of 7+ different hospitals and dealt with a ton of specialist to include: Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Gastroenterologist, OBGYN's and Electrophysiologist for her medical conditions. She is borderline PCOS and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, so she has to be gluten free and low carb. Having said that, I do believe the majority of people can benefit from lowering their carbs, but that is merely for the fact that most people get too little protein in their diet.
More likely, it's not "the majority of the population".
Well, I guess if you consider a handful to be a huge part of the population -- well over 80 million adults -- then I guess those semantics could apply.
Why can't people on this site just discuss issues with a little intellectual honesty?
I think this site can have intellectual conversations. In fact, that is why I am participating. But in a population of billions in this world, 80 million is a small number.
Looking at this link: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html 29 million have diabetes (1 out of 11 people) and 86 milllion have prediabetes, of which 15-30% will develop diabetes (which translates to 25 million will ever have type II diabetes). So again, in a population of billions, that is a drop in the bucket.
Do I think it needs to be addressed, absolutely. Do i understand that people should be aware, absolutely. Do I think people may need to take alternate approach, absolutely, but I don't think people should diagnose themselves in that potential 40% based on the extrapolated statistics.
It's a bit alarming how fast obesity rates have rise IN THE U.S. in MY LIFETIME, and how fast the related illnesses rose as well. I recently read that the expected lifespan of Americans is actually decreasing.
What's the answer? Eat less, move more?
Well, define "better"
If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?0 -
i don't believe this is truly the case. i think what we're going to find, as medicine advances and the tests for thyroid conditions continue to improve, we're going to find that more and more people who truly struggle with weight loss have thyroid imbalances. it won't be nearly as rare as you think it is.
our society is quick to judge the overweight, quick to blame and shame, quick to discriminate. but being overweight can sometimes be a symptom of another problem rather than a direct result. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that anyone who just doesn't want to put in the work of losing weight should jump on the "condishuns" bandwagon and add it to the santa's-naughty-list of excuses. but there comes a point when the mantras of "just try harder... just eat less" only hurt people rather than helping them.
So is your theory that the escalation in obesity we've seen over the past few decades only in certain countries throughout the world is due to people in those specific countries having an increased rate of thyroid conditions? What's the cause of certain countries seeing an increase in undiagnosed thyroid conditions when others aren't? Isn't it a bit odd that that dietary caloric intake has gone up and activity levels have gone down during this time period when the undiagnosed thyroid conditions were causing all these problems?
no. that's not what i meant. the increase in obesity rates can easily and obviously be linked to the changes made to the standard american diet. in short, we started vilifying fats and claiming that carbohydrates and whole grains were the holy grail of nutrition. add that to increases in food portion sizes from restaurants (the idea of "supersizing" fast food didn't exist when i was a kid), and having kids that sit inside in front of a screen rather than spending dawn till dusk outside playing, and you get a population with an ever-expanding waistline.
but along with that explosion of the obesity rates, we also see a growing portion of the population for whom the standard advice on weight loss is not working. we are quick to blame them for being lazy rather than ask WHY it's not working. with improvements in the testing procedures and better analysis of what the levels mean, we can see that the underlying issues are medical rather than an unwillingness to get off the couch. am i saying that this is the solution for the majority of the population? of course not. but i think what we WILL see is an increase in percentages, maybe going from the low single-digits to possibly low double-digits.A bit of sarcasm aside, I'm not saying some people don't have medical conditions. But if you do, get it diagnosed and treated. The societal trends we've seen with respect to obesity are not due to a rampant increase in thyroid problems. Rather, they're due to changes in diet and exercise (or lack thereof), due to societal trends towards larger portions, abundant access to inexpensive, calorically dense foods, more time spent in front of the TV/computer, less time spent walking and doing physical activity and so on. If you have a medical condition you need to get it treated, but for most people "just try harder... just eat less" is spot on.
remember, though... our first instinct is to blame the dieter when the diet fails. i see it here every single day... we get multiple posts by people who are frustrated because they're not losing weight. the knee-jerk answers are always "you're not measuring correctly" or "you're overestimating what you eat" or "you're not exercising enough." for some, yes that's the answer. but even when the person says "here's my diary, here's my exercise schedule, why is this not working", people are quick to give the easy, canned answer.
i don't know about you, but i find it incredibly insulting and demoralizing when i say "here's what i'm doing, i'm doing what everyone says is "right", why is this not working?" and i get an answer that equates to " oh it's easy, just eat less and move more. it was easy for me so therefore you're just making excuses and don't really want this badly enough." there are only a few, scattered souls who have the knowledge, the patience, and the compassion to step up and say "ok... let's try some other tactics. have you seen a doctor and discussed these specific topics?"
+10 -
Ignoring the 5 pages of "low carb yay!" and "low carb nay!"
I am 40 years old, I have been on a diet my whole life. And really, I've always eaten textbook healthy. Fruit, whole grains, low fat, healthy protein. I was a competitive swimmer most of my life. But those pounds, they just kept going up.
I started to have issues. My eyesight was blurry in the morning. I developed psoriasis on my feet. I was sore and tired for hours after working out. I could sleep for 5 hours in the middle of the day.
I went to the doctor to check my feet and eyes. Nobody mentioned diabetes. My parents died when I was very young, so I don't really know about their medical conditions, there was nobody to tell them to me.
I chalked it all up to 40-itis. Then my Type 1 boss tested me for fun. And the numbers were in stroke territory so he made me go to the doctor.
Got sent to diabetic education, and I've lost 40ish pounds since May. I'm actually eating MORE now than I did before. I have to. I've dropped from an 11.2 to a 6.4, which is top of the pre-diabetic range.
The point I'm going to take from this post is that if what you are doing isn't working, maybe it's time to try something else. And maybe time to make your doctor work for his money. I can honestly say that diabetes was the best thing that ever happened to me.0 -
Eating fewer refined carbohydrates (which tend to be calorically dense, and nutritionally lacking, and have a high glycemic impact and load) seems smart place to start and smart all around.
How about eating better? Does that have a role?
That would be a good thing to start withHer numbers are for the U.S. Not the world. Eobla deaths, malaria deaths, AIDS deaths, are a drop in the bucket when put against world populations. But not in the context of their communities.
It's a bit alarming how fast obesity rates have rise IN THE U.S. in MY LIFETIME, and how fast the related illnesses rose as well. I recently read that the expected lifespan of Americans is actually decreasing.
What's the answer? Eat less, move more?
Well, define "better"
If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?
+10 -
Fat is also calorically dense, moreso than refined carbs
Eating fewer refined carbohydrates (which tend to be calorically dense, and nutritionally lacking, and have a high glycemic impact and load) seems smart place to start and smart all around.
How about eating better? Does that have a role?
That would be a good thing to start with
Her numbers are for the U.S. Not the world. Eobla deaths, malaria deaths, AIDS deaths, are a drop in the bucket when put against world populations. But not in the context of their communities.
It's likely not "a handful of people" either.The estimates presented for undiagnosed populations were based on an NHANES survey and considered the results of fasting glucose or A1C tests - one result of one test. Anyone who has ever been pregnant and taken the gestational diabetes test knows that if you show up as positive on the first test, they bring you back in for a longer test before diagnosing you as having gestational diabetes.
Claiming that those population estimates are accurate based on one set of test results is flawed, not to mention that there are limitations to the tests themselves and factors that can impact the results. Those factors, particularly lifestyle factors, would not be accounted for in a survey, as most patients would not know to report those factors as possibly skewing their test results.
I just wanted to bump this post. A lot of the numbers in the OP are estimates. And just because you have prediabetes, doesn't mean you are full blow insulin resistant. I would also like point out, of that 30-35% estimated to have prediabets, about only 15% to 30% actually develop diabetes II.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html
There are a handful of people who have insulin resistance and it's real, but it's not 40% of our population has full blown insulin resistance. Those that are prediabetic can get their A1C back to normal with just weight loss, many of which don't even have to be concerned about carbs.
OP, i am sorry it took so long for you to discover your health issues, but your situation does not apply to the majority of the population. I understand your frustration, over the past 4 years, my wife has been in and out of 7+ different hospitals and dealt with a ton of specialist to include: Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Gastroenterologist, OBGYN's and Electrophysiologist for her medical conditions. She is borderline PCOS and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, so she has to be gluten free and low carb. Having said that, I do believe the majority of people can benefit from lowering their carbs, but that is merely for the fact that most people get too little protein in their diet.
More likely, it's not "the majority of the population".
Well, I guess if you consider a handful to be a huge part of the population -- well over 80 million adults -- then I guess those semantics could apply.
Why can't people on this site just discuss issues with a little intellectual honesty?
I think this site can have intellectual conversations. In fact, that is why I am participating. But in a population of billions in this world, 80 million is a small number.
Looking at this link: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html 29 million have diabetes (1 out of 11 people) and 86 milllion have prediabetes, of which 15-30% will develop diabetes (which translates to 25 million will ever have type II diabetes). So again, in a population of billions, that is a drop in the bucket.
Do I think it needs to be addressed, absolutely. Do i understand that people should be aware, absolutely. Do I think people may need to take alternate approach, absolutely, but I don't think people should diagnose themselves in that potential 40% based on the extrapolated statistics.
It's a bit alarming how fast obesity rates have rise IN THE U.S. in MY LIFETIME, and how fast the related illnesses rose as well. I recently read that the expected lifespan of Americans is actually decreasing.
What's the answer? Eat less, move more?
Well, define "better"
If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?0 -
Ignoring the 5 pages of "low carb yay!" and "low carb nay!"
I am 40 years old, I have been on a diet my whole life. And really, I've always eaten textbook healthy. Fruit, whole grains, low fat, healthy protein. I was a competitive swimmer most of my life. But those pounds, they just kept going up.
I started to have issues. My eyesight was blurry in the morning. I developed psoriasis on my feet. I was sore and tired for hours after working out. I could sleep for 5 hours in the middle of the day.
I went to the doctor to check my feet and eyes. Nobody mentioned diabetes. My parents died when I was very young, so I don't really know about their medical conditions, there was nobody to tell them to me.
I chalked it all up to 40-itis. Then my Type 1 boss tested me for fun. And the numbers were in stroke territory so he made me go to the doctor.
Got sent to diabetic education, and I've lost 40ish pounds since May. I'm actually eating MORE now than I did before. I have to. I've dropped from an 11.2 to a 6.4, which is top of the pre-diabetic range.
The point I'm going to take from this post is that if what you are doing isn't working, maybe it's time to try something else. And maybe time to make your doctor work for his money. I can honestly say that diabetes was the best thing that ever happened to me.
Exactly right. There are many cases here where Calories in vs Calories out doesn't mean crap until you address the medical issues going on in your body. Fat is a symptom of more than just over eating. People who've never dealt with this you're very lucky. But when you are doing everything "right" and nothing is working, we have to keep asking questions. I think the OP's point is simply be aware this stuff is out there. Get checked, change your macros. Do what it takes until you find the answer.
No one is saying that oh I have a medical condition, so it's OK that I'm fat. We are all here to loose weight. To share information. To learn, and ultimately to loose the weight.0 -
Fat is also calorically dense, moreso than refined carbs
Eating fewer refined carbohydrates (which tend to be calorically dense, and nutritionally lacking, and have a high glycemic impact and load) seems smart place to start and smart all around.
How about eating better? Does that have a role?
That would be a good thing to start with
Her numbers are for the U.S. Not the world. Eobla deaths, malaria deaths, AIDS deaths, are a drop in the bucket when put against world populations. But not in the context of their communities.
It's likely not "a handful of people" either.The estimates presented for undiagnosed populations were based on an NHANES survey and considered the results of fasting glucose or A1C tests - one result of one test. Anyone who has ever been pregnant and taken the gestational diabetes test knows that if you show up as positive on the first test, they bring you back in for a longer test before diagnosing you as having gestational diabetes.
Claiming that those population estimates are accurate based on one set of test results is flawed, not to mention that there are limitations to the tests themselves and factors that can impact the results. Those factors, particularly lifestyle factors, would not be accounted for in a survey, as most patients would not know to report those factors as possibly skewing their test results.
I just wanted to bump this post. A lot of the numbers in the OP are estimates. And just because you have prediabetes, doesn't mean you are full blow insulin resistant. I would also like point out, of that 30-35% estimated to have prediabets, about only 15% to 30% actually develop diabetes II.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html
There are a handful of people who have insulin resistance and it's real, but it's not 40% of our population has full blown insulin resistance. Those that are prediabetic can get their A1C back to normal with just weight loss, many of which don't even have to be concerned about carbs.
OP, i am sorry it took so long for you to discover your health issues, but your situation does not apply to the majority of the population. I understand your frustration, over the past 4 years, my wife has been in and out of 7+ different hospitals and dealt with a ton of specialist to include: Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Gastroenterologist, OBGYN's and Electrophysiologist for her medical conditions. She is borderline PCOS and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, so she has to be gluten free and low carb. Having said that, I do believe the majority of people can benefit from lowering their carbs, but that is merely for the fact that most people get too little protein in their diet.
More likely, it's not "the majority of the population".
Well, I guess if you consider a handful to be a huge part of the population -- well over 80 million adults -- then I guess those semantics could apply.
Why can't people on this site just discuss issues with a little intellectual honesty?
I think this site can have intellectual conversations. In fact, that is why I am participating. But in a population of billions in this world, 80 million is a small number.
Looking at this link: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html 29 million have diabetes (1 out of 11 people) and 86 milllion have prediabetes, of which 15-30% will develop diabetes (which translates to 25 million will ever have type II diabetes). So again, in a population of billions, that is a drop in the bucket.
Do I think it needs to be addressed, absolutely. Do i understand that people should be aware, absolutely. Do I think people may need to take alternate approach, absolutely, but I don't think people should diagnose themselves in that potential 40% based on the extrapolated statistics.
It's a bit alarming how fast obesity rates have rise IN THE U.S. in MY LIFETIME, and how fast the related illnesses rose as well. I recently read that the expected lifespan of Americans is actually decreasing.
What's the answer? Eat less, move more?
Well, define "better"
If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?
But it also has a lower glycemic index - so, hitting your micro and macro targets with low glycemic foods would be more likely to eliminate refined carbs.
However, my suggestion to people would be to look at the GI and the micros and macros rather than the "refined carbs"0 -
GI is meaningless. GI is the carb source measured in isolation, that means without fiber, protein, or fat. You can turn a "fast carb" into a "slow carb" just by having a mixed meal.
Fat is also calorically dense, moreso than refined carbs
Eating fewer refined carbohydrates (which tend to be calorically dense, and nutritionally lacking, and have a high glycemic impact and load) seems smart place to start and smart all around.
How about eating better? Does that have a role?
That would be a good thing to start with
Her numbers are for the U.S. Not the world. Eobla deaths, malaria deaths, AIDS deaths, are a drop in the bucket when put against world populations. But not in the context of their communities.
It's likely not "a handful of people" either.The estimates presented for undiagnosed populations were based on an NHANES survey and considered the results of fasting glucose or A1C tests - one result of one test. Anyone who has ever been pregnant and taken the gestational diabetes test knows that if you show up as positive on the first test, they bring you back in for a longer test before diagnosing you as having gestational diabetes.
Claiming that those population estimates are accurate based on one set of test results is flawed, not to mention that there are limitations to the tests themselves and factors that can impact the results. Those factors, particularly lifestyle factors, would not be accounted for in a survey, as most patients would not know to report those factors as possibly skewing their test results.
I just wanted to bump this post. A lot of the numbers in the OP are estimates. And just because you have prediabetes, doesn't mean you are full blow insulin resistant. I would also like point out, of that 30-35% estimated to have prediabets, about only 15% to 30% actually develop diabetes II.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html
There are a handful of people who have insulin resistance and it's real, but it's not 40% of our population has full blown insulin resistance. Those that are prediabetic can get their A1C back to normal with just weight loss, many of which don't even have to be concerned about carbs.
OP, i am sorry it took so long for you to discover your health issues, but your situation does not apply to the majority of the population. I understand your frustration, over the past 4 years, my wife has been in and out of 7+ different hospitals and dealt with a ton of specialist to include: Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Gastroenterologist, OBGYN's and Electrophysiologist for her medical conditions. She is borderline PCOS and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, so she has to be gluten free and low carb. Having said that, I do believe the majority of people can benefit from lowering their carbs, but that is merely for the fact that most people get too little protein in their diet.
More likely, it's not "the majority of the population".
Well, I guess if you consider a handful to be a huge part of the population -- well over 80 million adults -- then I guess those semantics could apply.
Why can't people on this site just discuss issues with a little intellectual honesty?
I think this site can have intellectual conversations. In fact, that is why I am participating. But in a population of billions in this world, 80 million is a small number.
Looking at this link: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html 29 million have diabetes (1 out of 11 people) and 86 milllion have prediabetes, of which 15-30% will develop diabetes (which translates to 25 million will ever have type II diabetes). So again, in a population of billions, that is a drop in the bucket.
Do I think it needs to be addressed, absolutely. Do i understand that people should be aware, absolutely. Do I think people may need to take alternate approach, absolutely, but I don't think people should diagnose themselves in that potential 40% based on the extrapolated statistics.
It's a bit alarming how fast obesity rates have rise IN THE U.S. in MY LIFETIME, and how fast the related illnesses rose as well. I recently read that the expected lifespan of Americans is actually decreasing.
What's the answer? Eat less, move more?
Well, define "better"
If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?
But it also has a lower glycemic index - so, hitting your micro and macro targets with low glycemic foods would be more likely to eliminate refined carbs.
However, my suggestion to people would be to look at the GI and the micros and macros rather than the "refined carbs"0 -
GI is meaningless. GI is the carb source measured in isolation, that means without fiber, protein, or fat. You can turn a "fast carb" into a "slow carb" just by having a mixed meal.
Fat is also calorically dense, moreso than refined carbs
Eating fewer refined carbohydrates (which tend to be calorically dense, and nutritionally lacking, and have a high glycemic impact and load) seems smart place to start and smart all around.
How about eating better? Does that have a role?
That would be a good thing to start with
Her numbers are for the U.S. Not the world. Eobla deaths, malaria deaths, AIDS deaths, are a drop in the bucket when put against world populations. But not in the context of their communities.
It's likely not "a handful of people" either.The estimates presented for undiagnosed populations were based on an NHANES survey and considered the results of fasting glucose or A1C tests - one result of one test. Anyone who has ever been pregnant and taken the gestational diabetes test knows that if you show up as positive on the first test, they bring you back in for a longer test before diagnosing you as having gestational diabetes.
Claiming that those population estimates are accurate based on one set of test results is flawed, not to mention that there are limitations to the tests themselves and factors that can impact the results. Those factors, particularly lifestyle factors, would not be accounted for in a survey, as most patients would not know to report those factors as possibly skewing their test results.
I just wanted to bump this post. A lot of the numbers in the OP are estimates. And just because you have prediabetes, doesn't mean you are full blow insulin resistant. I would also like point out, of that 30-35% estimated to have prediabets, about only 15% to 30% actually develop diabetes II.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html
There are a handful of people who have insulin resistance and it's real, but it's not 40% of our population has full blown insulin resistance. Those that are prediabetic can get their A1C back to normal with just weight loss, many of which don't even have to be concerned about carbs.
OP, i am sorry it took so long for you to discover your health issues, but your situation does not apply to the majority of the population. I understand your frustration, over the past 4 years, my wife has been in and out of 7+ different hospitals and dealt with a ton of specialist to include: Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Gastroenterologist, OBGYN's and Electrophysiologist for her medical conditions. She is borderline PCOS and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, so she has to be gluten free and low carb. Having said that, I do believe the majority of people can benefit from lowering their carbs, but that is merely for the fact that most people get too little protein in their diet.
More likely, it's not "the majority of the population".
Well, I guess if you consider a handful to be a huge part of the population -- well over 80 million adults -- then I guess those semantics could apply.
Why can't people on this site just discuss issues with a little intellectual honesty?
I think this site can have intellectual conversations. In fact, that is why I am participating. But in a population of billions in this world, 80 million is a small number.
Looking at this link: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html 29 million have diabetes (1 out of 11 people) and 86 milllion have prediabetes, of which 15-30% will develop diabetes (which translates to 25 million will ever have type II diabetes). So again, in a population of billions, that is a drop in the bucket.
Do I think it needs to be addressed, absolutely. Do i understand that people should be aware, absolutely. Do I think people may need to take alternate approach, absolutely, but I don't think people should diagnose themselves in that potential 40% based on the extrapolated statistics.
It's a bit alarming how fast obesity rates have rise IN THE U.S. in MY LIFETIME, and how fast the related illnesses rose as well. I recently read that the expected lifespan of Americans is actually decreasing.
What's the answer? Eat less, move more?
Well, define "better"
If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?
But it also has a lower glycemic index - so, hitting your micro and macro targets with low glycemic foods would be more likely to eliminate refined carbs.
However, my suggestion to people would be to look at the GI and the micros and macros rather than the "refined carbs"
Yeah. I'd argue that a person experiencing IR should allow exercise to balance out their issue and just eat less. If they find that they are hungrier after eating certain foods, to eliminate those foods for the time being.0 -
You can blunt the glycemic impact of foods to an extent by mixing them with fat and protein, yes. So you wouldn't want to get rid of fats. :-)
GI is meaningless. GI is the carb source measured in isolation, that means without fiber, protein, or fat. You can turn a "fast carb" into a "slow carb" just by having a mixed meal.
Fat is also calorically dense, moreso than refined carbs
Eating fewer refined carbohydrates (which tend to be calorically dense, and nutritionally lacking, and have a high glycemic impact and load) seems smart place to start and smart all around.
How about eating better? Does that have a role?
That would be a good thing to start with
Her numbers are for the U.S. Not the world. Eobla deaths, malaria deaths, AIDS deaths, are a drop in the bucket when put against world populations. But not in the context of their communities.
It's likely not "a handful of people" either.The estimates presented for undiagnosed populations were based on an NHANES survey and considered the results of fasting glucose or A1C tests - one result of one test. Anyone who has ever been pregnant and taken the gestational diabetes test knows that if you show up as positive on the first test, they bring you back in for a longer test before diagnosing you as having gestational diabetes.
Claiming that those population estimates are accurate based on one set of test results is flawed, not to mention that there are limitations to the tests themselves and factors that can impact the results. Those factors, particularly lifestyle factors, would not be accounted for in a survey, as most patients would not know to report those factors as possibly skewing their test results.
I just wanted to bump this post. A lot of the numbers in the OP are estimates. And just because you have prediabetes, doesn't mean you are full blow insulin resistant. I would also like point out, of that 30-35% estimated to have prediabets, about only 15% to 30% actually develop diabetes II.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html
There are a handful of people who have insulin resistance and it's real, but it's not 40% of our population has full blown insulin resistance. Those that are prediabetic can get their A1C back to normal with just weight loss, many of which don't even have to be concerned about carbs.
OP, i am sorry it took so long for you to discover your health issues, but your situation does not apply to the majority of the population. I understand your frustration, over the past 4 years, my wife has been in and out of 7+ different hospitals and dealt with a ton of specialist to include: Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Gastroenterologist, OBGYN's and Electrophysiologist for her medical conditions. She is borderline PCOS and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, so she has to be gluten free and low carb. Having said that, I do believe the majority of people can benefit from lowering their carbs, but that is merely for the fact that most people get too little protein in their diet.
More likely, it's not "the majority of the population".
Well, I guess if you consider a handful to be a huge part of the population -- well over 80 million adults -- then I guess those semantics could apply.
Why can't people on this site just discuss issues with a little intellectual honesty?
I think this site can have intellectual conversations. In fact, that is why I am participating. But in a population of billions in this world, 80 million is a small number.
Looking at this link: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html 29 million have diabetes (1 out of 11 people) and 86 milllion have prediabetes, of which 15-30% will develop diabetes (which translates to 25 million will ever have type II diabetes). So again, in a population of billions, that is a drop in the bucket.
Do I think it needs to be addressed, absolutely. Do i understand that people should be aware, absolutely. Do I think people may need to take alternate approach, absolutely, but I don't think people should diagnose themselves in that potential 40% based on the extrapolated statistics.
It's a bit alarming how fast obesity rates have rise IN THE U.S. in MY LIFETIME, and how fast the related illnesses rose as well. I recently read that the expected lifespan of Americans is actually decreasing.
What's the answer? Eat less, move more?
Well, define "better"
If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?
But it also has a lower glycemic index - so, hitting your micro and macro targets with low glycemic foods would be more likely to eliminate refined carbs.
However, my suggestion to people would be to look at the GI and the micros and macros rather than the "refined carbs"0 -
I agree, I have my own "do not eat" list I keep when I'm in and trying to maintain a deficit.
GI is meaningless. GI is the carb source measured in isolation, that means without fiber, protein, or fat. You can turn a "fast carb" into a "slow carb" just by having a mixed meal.
Fat is also calorically dense, moreso than refined carbs
Eating fewer refined carbohydrates (which tend to be calorically dense, and nutritionally lacking, and have a high glycemic impact and load) seems smart place to start and smart all around.
How about eating better? Does that have a role?
That would be a good thing to start with
Her numbers are for the U.S. Not the world. Eobla deaths, malaria deaths, AIDS deaths, are a drop in the bucket when put against world populations. But not in the context of their communities.
It's likely not "a handful of people" either.The estimates presented for undiagnosed populations were based on an NHANES survey and considered the results of fasting glucose or A1C tests - one result of one test. Anyone who has ever been pregnant and taken the gestational diabetes test knows that if you show up as positive on the first test, they bring you back in for a longer test before diagnosing you as having gestational diabetes.
Claiming that those population estimates are accurate based on one set of test results is flawed, not to mention that there are limitations to the tests themselves and factors that can impact the results. Those factors, particularly lifestyle factors, would not be accounted for in a survey, as most patients would not know to report those factors as possibly skewing their test results.
I just wanted to bump this post. A lot of the numbers in the OP are estimates. And just because you have prediabetes, doesn't mean you are full blow insulin resistant. I would also like point out, of that 30-35% estimated to have prediabets, about only 15% to 30% actually develop diabetes II.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html
There are a handful of people who have insulin resistance and it's real, but it's not 40% of our population has full blown insulin resistance. Those that are prediabetic can get their A1C back to normal with just weight loss, many of which don't even have to be concerned about carbs.
OP, i am sorry it took so long for you to discover your health issues, but your situation does not apply to the majority of the population. I understand your frustration, over the past 4 years, my wife has been in and out of 7+ different hospitals and dealt with a ton of specialist to include: Cardiologist, Endocrinologist, Gastroenterologist, OBGYN's and Electrophysiologist for her medical conditions. She is borderline PCOS and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, so she has to be gluten free and low carb. Having said that, I do believe the majority of people can benefit from lowering their carbs, but that is merely for the fact that most people get too little protein in their diet.
More likely, it's not "the majority of the population".
Well, I guess if you consider a handful to be a huge part of the population -- well over 80 million adults -- then I guess those semantics could apply.
Why can't people on this site just discuss issues with a little intellectual honesty?
I think this site can have intellectual conversations. In fact, that is why I am participating. But in a population of billions in this world, 80 million is a small number.
Looking at this link: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/cdc-infographic.html 29 million have diabetes (1 out of 11 people) and 86 milllion have prediabetes, of which 15-30% will develop diabetes (which translates to 25 million will ever have type II diabetes). So again, in a population of billions, that is a drop in the bucket.
Do I think it needs to be addressed, absolutely. Do i understand that people should be aware, absolutely. Do I think people may need to take alternate approach, absolutely, but I don't think people should diagnose themselves in that potential 40% based on the extrapolated statistics.
It's a bit alarming how fast obesity rates have rise IN THE U.S. in MY LIFETIME, and how fast the related illnesses rose as well. I recently read that the expected lifespan of Americans is actually decreasing.
What's the answer? Eat less, move more?
Well, define "better"
If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?
But it also has a lower glycemic index - so, hitting your micro and macro targets with low glycemic foods would be more likely to eliminate refined carbs.
However, my suggestion to people would be to look at the GI and the micros and macros rather than the "refined carbs"
Yeah. I'd argue that a person experiencing IR should allow exercise to balance out their issue and just eat less. If they find that they are hungrier after eating certain foods, to eliminate those foods for the time being.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 429 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions