Over 40% of US Adults have Insulin Resistance

Sabine_Stroehm

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.

It's likely not "a handful of people" either.

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.

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 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?

likitisplit

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.

eric_sg61

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.

It's likely not "a handful of people" either.

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.

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 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?

That would be a good thing to start with

lindsey1979

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

lindsey1979

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Sabine_Stroehm

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.

It's likely not "a handful of people" either.

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.

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 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?

That would be a good thing to start with

How about eating better? Does that have a role?

_Zardoz_

Lies damm lies and and statistics

likitisplit

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.

It's likely not "a handful of people" either.

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.

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 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?

That would be a good thing to start with

How about eating better? Does that have a role?

Well, define "better"

If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?

meridianova

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?"

Sabine_Stroehm

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.

It's likely not "a handful of people" either.

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.

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 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?

That would be a good thing to start with

How about eating better? Does that have a role?

Well, define "better"

If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?

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.

lindsey1979

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?"

+1

kikityme

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.

lindsey1979

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 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?

That would be a good thing to start with

How about eating better? Does that have a role?

Well, define "better"

If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?

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.

+1

eric_sg61

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.

It's likely not "a handful of people" either.

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.

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 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?

That would be a good thing to start with

How about eating better? Does that have a role?

Well, define "better"

If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?

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.

Fat is also calorically dense, moreso than refined carbs

A_Dabauer

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.

likitisplit

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.

It's likely not "a handful of people" either.

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.

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 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?

That would be a good thing to start with

How about eating better? Does that have a role?

Well, define "better"

If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?

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.

Fat is also calorically dense, moreso than refined carbs

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"

eric_sg61

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.

It's likely not "a handful of people" either.

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.

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 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?

That would be a good thing to start with

How about eating better? Does that have a role?

Well, define "better"

If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?

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.

Fat is also calorically dense, moreso than refined carbs

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"

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.

likitisplit

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.

It's likely not "a handful of people" either.

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.

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 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?

That would be a good thing to start with

How about eating better? Does that have a role?

Well, define "better"

If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?

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.

Fat is also calorically dense, moreso than refined carbs

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"

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.

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.

Sabine_Stroehm

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.

It's likely not "a handful of people" either.

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.

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 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?

That would be a good thing to start with

How about eating better? Does that have a role?

Well, define "better"

If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?

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.

Fat is also calorically dense, moreso than refined carbs

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"

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.

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. :-)

eric_sg61

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.

It's likely not "a handful of people" either.

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.

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 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?

That would be a good thing to start with

How about eating better? Does that have a role?

Well, define "better"

If IR is a factor, then better would be "low glycemic" right?

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.

Fat is also calorically dense, moreso than refined carbs

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"

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.

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.

I agree, I have my own "do not eat" list I keep when I'm in and trying to maintain a deficit.