Over 40% of US Adults have Insulin Resistance
Replies
-
If it is--as frankly I think it is intended--supposed to be a claim that over half of the posters here can't do anything to lose, that they are helpless and merely should be reassured of that, then I think there is a misunderstanding not only of the numbers but of what insulin resistance means. It's worth noting that the majority of the posters who seem to want to be recognized and reassured in their helplessness are not the ones struggling with medical diagnoses. Those usually seem to understand their challenges and be trying to address them. It's the people who claim they can't change how they are eating because they have no time to do anything but get fast food or who say they can't eat vegetables or can't help but overeat (often because of what parents or their spouse or others around them do), etc. Maybe it's just the posts I look at, but those are the ones that seem to get other posters frustrated. Not ones that show someone trying and continuing to be unsuccessful. Those get "see your doctor."
I didn't really get that impression from the post at all. We can debate whether the percentages are exaggerated and the accuracy with which they were calculated, but I think the OP was simply directed at trying to educate some people that these conditions are more common than some might think not because it gives people an excuse for not losing, but more to counter the typical backlash when anyone mentions doing a LCHF diet. I don't think a day goes past when I don't see a response to someone trying to do a LCHF diet along the lines of "you don't need to restrict anything, eat yummy carbs!" and a few pictures of cookies thrown in for good measure, when in reality the number of people who might benefit from a lower carb macro is relatively high. Of course, there are drawbacks to LCHF diets as well and even some people with a mild resistance to insulin may have worse success on a LCHF due to, e.g., poor adherence. I'd say that a substantial majority of people do not need to concern themselves with reducing carbs, but there are quite a few people who genuinely seem to believe there is no place for LCHF diet for anyone, regardless of their circumstances, and that's simply not the case.
But as we've said before, I think we all tend to look at these posts a bit differently. I'm sort of neutral on the whole matter, but put yourselves in the shoes of someone who struggled for years eating a higher carb macro due to undiagnosed PCOS and who finally saw some success in weight management once their doctor diagnosed their PCOS and put them on a LCHF diet (which isn't that uncommon of a story). Is it really surprising that person might react with some frustration when they see a post about someone doing a LCHF diet and getting told that's a waste of time and that they should eat yummy ice cream instead? While I don't really think it's productive to push LCHF on the average person, I also think it's ignorant to rail against LCHF as a fruitless effort destined to fail regardless of the context - and you see both situations pretty frequently around here.
Thank you parkscs, for more eliquently putting my earlier point. Whenever I have posted a question regarding this or seen other peoples post on this type of topic, half the posts are exactly that "eat carbs they aren't bad" or "eat anything in moderation" even if I explain my medical issues a lot still rail against it.
I also agree that one method does not work for everyone, and my first suggestion to anyone is "are you measuring and recording everything accurately" as this is an issue alot. But I do find that if you try something different and ask advice about it or give your success story on trying something different there are way to many people on here that bash you and say it is all CICO and nothing else matters.0 -
I'm just going to leave this link here, since it provides information about insulin resistance that have been debated in the thread:
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/insulinresistance/
Of note, from the site, concerning the chicken or the egg argument:What causes insulin resistance?
Although the exact causes of insulin resistance are not completely understood, scientists think the major contributors to insulin resistance are excess weight and physical inactivity.
Excess Weight
Some experts believe obesity, especially excess fat around the waist, is a primary cause of insulin resistance. Scientists used to think that fat tissue functioned solely as energy storage. However, studies have shown that belly fat produces hormones and other substances that can cause serious health problems such as insulin resistance, high blood pressure, imbalanced cholesterol, and cardiovascular disease (CVD).
Belly fat plays a part in developing chronic, or long-lasting, inflammation in the body. Chronic inflammation can damage the body over time, without any signs or symptoms. Scientists have found that complex interactions in fat tissue draw immune cells to the area and trigger low-level chronic inflammation. This inflammation can contribute to the development of insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and CVD. Studies show that losing the weight can reduce insulin resistance and prevent or delay type 2 diabetes.
Physical Inactivity
Many studies have shown that physical inactivity is associated with insulin resistance, often leading to type 2 diabetes. In the body, more glucose is used by muscle than other tissues. Normally, active muscles burn their stored glucose for energy and refill their reserves with glucose taken from the bloodstream, keeping blood glucose levels in balance.
Studies show that after exercising, muscles become more sensitive to insulin, reversing insulin resistance and lowering blood glucose levels. Exercise also helps muscles absorb more glucose without the need for insulin. The more muscle a body has, the more glucose it can burn to control blood glucose levels.
Other Causes
Other causes of insulin resistance may include ethnicity; certain diseases; hormones; steroid use; some medications; older age; sleep problems, especially sleep apnea; and cigarette smoking.
And concerning oversampling of minority populations which led to the 40% estimate (remember that Hispanic, African American, and Asian groups were oversampled):Who should be tested for prediabetes?
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends that testing to detect prediabetes be considered in adults who are overweight or obese and have one or more additional risk factors for diabetes. The section “Body Mass Index (BMI)” explains how to determine if a person is overweight or obese. However, not everyone who is overweight will get type 2 diabetes. People without these risk factors should begin testing at age 45.
Risk factors for prediabetes—in addition to being overweight or obese or being age 45 or older—include the following:
-being physically inactive
-having a parent or sibling with diabetes
-having a family background that is African American, Alaska Native, American Indian, Asian American, Hispanic/Latino, or Pacific Islander American
-giving birth to a baby weighing more than 9 pounds
-being diagnosed with gestational diabetes—diabetes that develops only during pregnancy
-having high blood pressure—140/90 mmHg or above—or being treated for high blood pressure
-HDL cholesterol level below 35 mg/dL or a triglyceride level above 250 mg/dL
-having polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)
-having prediabetes, impaired fasting glucose (IFG), or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) on an earlier testing
-having other conditions associated with insulin resistance, such as obesity or acanthosis nigricans
-having CVD0 -
Suggesting that you got fat from dieting seems a bit disingenuous. If you were dieting it would insinuate that you were overweight at the beginning of the journey. And when you say you dieted like everyone else do you mean you picked a fad diet? Or did you start with a food scale and some basic information?
Disingenuous? No, I don't think so. I swam competitively, training 2hrs/day 5 days/wk. I have a food scale that could qualify for a nasa experiment. If by "fad" you mean no junk food, heavy on the organic meat and vegetables and whole grains...
But, for me, the weight kept adding on. I was religious, I had a NUTRITIONIST for crying out loud. My calories were kept at 1500. Because I was eating the wrong things for me. I can't handle carbs. Period. Whole grain, no grain, bleached, unbleached--it doesn't matter. The genetic predisposition comes from the aboriginal half of my family.
It took the diagnosis for me to find a different way, even after all the nutritionists from the team gave me a nice, clean diet to follow that would make anyone happy on paper, and to find a plan that worked for me.
What makes me sad is that you say diabetes, and you always get the look. The "well, you did it to yourself" look. Like that's ok. It's not. Nobody knows anybody else's story. No other disease prompts that response.0 -
OP,
What's the application here? Awareness? Low-carb dieting for all? I cannot read the point between your hyper- defensiveness and unwillingness to consider anything other than your own opinion. I'd really like to consider your point. I love information. But the 2 studies that you have listed have been shown to be pretty shaky and yet you continue to end all of your points with "well this is a big issue because 43% is still a lot" and haven't really tried to get better information.
Where is this going? What should 100% of MFP be doing because of this information? Even if the link you posted is correct and "43% is a lot of people." Okay.... 57% is even more people.... Should I make PSA that 57% of people don't have insulin resistance?0 -
SMH
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.0 -
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.
but that's why it's up to them to go to their doctor and rule those things out first?
very few people on these forums are doctors or able to give people blood tests simply by reading their post. for the majority of people (as implied in your own OP) calories in and calories are all that matters. it's also pretty much assumed that people who are asking for advice have been to the doctor.
you cant very well expect the people who are asked for their advice and opinion to know intimate details of an OP's health :laugh:
Since over 75% of the people with insulin resistance don't know about it -- it seems like either people aren't discussing it with their doctors (I didn't know about it until recently myself) or the doctors aren't diagnosing it properly.
So, I offered up some scary statistics about how common it is, how it can make people trying to lose/maintain weight very difficult and some things that can help them with that journey that don't involve medication or going to the doctor (frequent exercise, reducing carbs).
A calorie is not just a calorie for people with insulin resistance. The source of that calorie -- carb, fat or protein -- makes a HUGE difference for many of them because of the way their bodies metabolize glucose. Why is this such a big deal?
I have hypothyroidism which was diagnosed 6 years ago. At the time, I was also called "pre-diabetic," which I believe is another term for "insulin resistance." I lost weight after my diagnosis. I was put on Synthroid and Metformin. I lost the weight by working out, which, of course probably balanced out the calories in vs calories out bit. I tried watching what I ate to an extent, but was never told to watch carbs or whatever, I just tried to eat less. I lost about 40 lbs, which was all I really needed to lose, so I was good. Fast forward to 2011. I got "too busy" to workout anymore. I have a metabolic disorder. Stopping the extra exercise allowed my body to go back to the crappier metabolism, as I wasn't doing anything to encourage it to do better. I started working out again in 2012, after having regained 15-20 lbs of the weight I'd lost. I lost the weight and reached my goal 4 months after I started working out again. Oh, and I stopped taking the Metformin (with my doctor's consent) at least 2-3 years ago. I'm no longer pre-diabetic/insulin resistant. My numbers are good.
I say all of this to say that one recipe doesn't work for everyone. Sure, carbs may have more of an effect on some than others, but that doesn't mean it's the be-all-end-all solution. For me, I have to keep an eye on what I eat and I *HAVE* to exercise. I only work out about 30-40 minutes 3-5 times per week, but that's kept me at maintenance for 2 years.
Totally agree. Exercise and carb restriction are just the two I've seen recommended the most, but some only require one, some require the other, some require both. It really varies with the individual most definitely.0 -
I thought you said you were exiting the conversation? Welcome back.I'm just going to leave this link here, since it provides information about insulin resistance that have been debated in the thread:
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/insulinresistance/
Of note, from the site, concerning the chicken or the egg argument:What causes insulin resistance?
Although the exact causes of insulin resistance are not completely understood, scientists think the major contributors to insulin resistance are excess weight and physical inactivity.
Excess Weight
Some experts believe obesity, especially excess fat around the waist, is a primary cause of insulin resistance. Scientists used to think that fat tissue functioned solely as energy storage. However, studies have shown that belly fat produces hormones and other substances that can cause serious health problems such as insulin resistance, high blood pressure, imbalanced cholesterol, and cardiovascular disease (CVD).
Belly fat plays a part in developing chronic, or long-lasting, inflammation in the body. Chronic inflammation can damage the body over time, without any signs or symptoms. Scientists have found that complex interactions in fat tissue draw immune cells to the area and trigger low-level chronic inflammation. This inflammation can contribute to the development of insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and CVD. Studies show that losing the weight can reduce insulin resistance and prevent or delay type 2 diabetes.
Physical Inactivity
Many studies have shown that physical inactivity is associated with insulin resistance, often leading to type 2 diabetes. In the body, more glucose is used by muscle than other tissues. Normally, active muscles burn their stored glucose for energy and refill their reserves with glucose taken from the bloodstream, keeping blood glucose levels in balance.
Studies show that after exercising, muscles become more sensitive to insulin, reversing insulin resistance and lowering blood glucose levels. Exercise also helps muscles absorb more glucose without the need for insulin. The more muscle a body has, the more glucose it can burn to control blood glucose levels.
Other Causes
Other causes of insulin resistance may include ethnicity; certain diseases; hormones; steroid use; some medications; older age; sleep problems, especially sleep apnea; and cigarette smoking.
And concerning oversampling of minority populations which led to the 40% estimate (remember that Hispanic, African American, and Asian groups were oversampled):Who should be tested for prediabetes?
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends that testing to detect prediabetes be considered in adults who are overweight or obese and have one or more additional risk factors for diabetes. The section “Body Mass Index (BMI)” explains how to determine if a person is overweight or obese. However, not everyone who is overweight will get type 2 diabetes. People without these risk factors should begin testing at age 45.
Risk factors for prediabetes—in addition to being overweight or obese or being age 45 or older—include the following:
-being physically inactive
-having a parent or sibling with diabetes
-having a family background that is African American, Alaska Native, American Indian, Asian American, Hispanic/Latino, or Pacific Islander American
-giving birth to a baby weighing more than 9 pounds
-being diagnosed with gestational diabetes—diabetes that develops only during pregnancy
-having high blood pressure—140/90 mmHg or above—or being treated for high blood pressure
-HDL cholesterol level below 35 mg/dL or a triglyceride level above 250 mg/dL
-having polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)
-having prediabetes, impaired fasting glucose (IFG), or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) on an earlier testing
-having other conditions associated with insulin resistance, such as obesity or acanthosis nigricans
-having CVD0 -
OP,
What's the application here? Awareness? Low-carb dieting for all? I cannot read the point between your hyper- defensiveness and unwillingness to consider anything other than your own opinion. I'd really like to consider your point. I love information. But the 2 studies that you have listed have been shown to be pretty shaky and yet you continue to end all of your points with "well this is a big issue because 43% is still a lot" and haven't really tried to get better information.
Where is this going? What should 100% of MFP be doing because of this information? Even if the link you posted is correct and "43% is a lot of people." Okay.... 57% is even more people.... Should I make PSA that 57% of people don't have insulin resistance?
Where are the two studies shaky? One poster pointed out how certain populations were over sampled, that's all. You do realize that is usually the case for minority groups so that the study can get accurate numbers on those minority groups? She doesn't point out why the oversampling in this particular case was inaccurate or wrong -- I don't see a reason for that to be the case and she hasn't provided one AT ALL.
Then she complains that the diagnosis was based on ONE physical exam and ONE blood test. The report numbers are based on either fasting blood glucose levels of A1C test. Ugh, once pretty darn common in diabetes/insulin resistance. Especially for those using the A1C test as it gives you a read on sugar issues for the past 2-3 months. Once again, gold standard for such diagnosis. So, where is the problem again? Oh, she doesn't say.
She just states the obvious and acts as if it's a problem or references how it could be a problem in other scenarios (i.e. the diagnosis of other diseases) but not how it actually applies the very scenario at issue. And people like you apparently can't tell the difference.
That doesn't invalidate an entire study. But, please do go on and explain where the two studies are shaky...and where are the two studies? One is statistics from the ADA and the other is from the CDC. Is the CDC off on their obesity statistics too?
I find your accusations pretty funny about hyper sensitivity. Anyone with half a brain on MFP should know that there is no one solution for all. But, perhaps you missed that. Inadequate reading comprehension seems to be a serious issue on MFP, though I have no peer-reviewed study to support that. Just anecdotal evidence.
As I've said a few times...it's about awareness of how incredibly common insulin resistance is and how certain specific things (specific diet changes and exercise) may help those people in particular. If you go back and read the original post, that's all pretty apparent.
Perhaps you don't think awareness should be spread about something that affects 43% of the population. I disagree. I consider that a very big deal and if my dissemination of that information helps, good. It has already helped a few people that have personally reached out to me to thank me. If you find that offensive or of little help, fine. Feel free to skip the thread, hyper defensiveness and all.
Here's the full report (though this will actually require you to read it): http://professional.diabetes.org/admin/userfiles/0 - sean/fastfacts march 2013.pdf0 -
I'm just going to leave this link here, since it provides information about insulin resistance that have been debated in the thread:
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/insulinresistance/
What use is "leaving something here" without an explanation as to how it's at all relevant? Since when did copy/pasting webpages become a contribution to a discussion? What you copy/pasted is nothing new to me - what in particular do you think it adds to this discussion?
But if you're referring to my chicken and egg statement earlier in this thread, I'll elaborate a bit on that since chicken and egg probably isn't a 100% accurate analogy for what I meant. Insulin resistance can make it more difficult to lose weight, particularly so depending on the composition of your diet. On the other hand, one of the best ways to treat insulin resistance and improve insulin sensitivity is to lose weight. So you can get stuck in a bit of a vicious cycle, where you're struggling to lose weight with a diet that may be perfectly acceptable for someone whose body handles insulin properly and you're not improving your insulin resistance because you aren't dropping the weight. So in terms of what came first, it was the weight - but the insulin resistance can affect your ability to lose the weight in some circumstances. That's all I was trying to say. It's not an excuse for not losing, but it can make life more difficult by making it more difficult to lose and easier to gain weight. Personally, I don't really pay much attention to excuses, but practically speaking I think you should pay attention to optimal ways of affecting body composition and for some people that means understanding things like insulin resistance and how to deal with them.
As for the statistics, oversampling and the like - honestly, who cares if the numbers are off. Even if they were way off, say 50% exaggerated, that's still a lot of people who have at least some degree of insulin resistance. And ultimately I think that's the point. It doesn't matter if it's 20% or 40% or whatever - it's a lot of people, and thus it's something that people should probably be aware of.0 -
I'm just going to leave this link here, since it provides information about insulin resistance that have been debated in the thread:
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/insulinresistance/
What use is "leaving something here" without an explanation as to how it's at all relevant? Since when did copy/pasting webpages become a contribution to a discussion? What you copy/pasted is nothing new to me - what in particular do you think it adds to this discussion?
But if you're referring to my chicken and egg statement earlier in this thread, I'll elaborate a bit on that since chicken and egg probably isn't a 100% accurate analogy for what I meant. Insulin resistance can make it more difficult to lose weight, particularly so depending on the composition of your diet. On the other hand, one of the best ways to treat insulin resistance and improve insulin sensitivity is to lose weight. So you can get stuck in a bit of a vicious cycle, where you're struggling to lose weight with a diet that may be perfectly acceptable for someone whose body handles insulin properly and you're not improving your insulin resistance because you aren't dropping the weight. So in terms of what came first, it was the weight - but the insulin resistance can affect your ability to lose the weight in some circumstances. That's all I was trying to say. It's not an excuse for not losing, but it can make life more difficult by making it more difficult to lose and easier to gain weight. Personally, I don't really pay much attention to excuses, but practically speaking I think you should pay attention to optimal ways of affecting body composition and for some people that means understanding things like insulin resistance and how to deal with them.
As for the statistics, oversampling and the like - honestly, who cares if the numbers are off. Even if they were way off, say 50% exaggerated, that's still a lot of people who have at least some degree of insulin resistance. And ultimately I think that's the point. It doesn't matter if it's 20% or 40% or whatever - it's a lot of people, and thus it's something that people should probably be aware of.
Just one minor note: the weight doesn't always come first. There are those with insulin resistance that are of normal weight, and they believe those come from other hormonal imbalances (like Catter with PCOS, long untreated hypothyroid, etc.). But, if it isn't addressed, it often leads to weight gain and many don't discover it until they've gain weight. But, it's not possible to tell which came first there -- just that you now know that you're now overweight and have insulin resistance.
But there definitely is a catch-22 on getting rid of it as you pointed out. That one of things that helps reduce/reverse it is weight loss, but if you have it, it can be more difficult to lose weight (though certain strategies have been shown to help those with this issue).
Also, thank you on the second paragraph!0 -
OP,
What's the application here? Awareness? Low-carb dieting for all? I cannot read the point between your hyper- defensiveness and unwillingness to consider anything other than your own opinion. I'd really like to consider your point. I love information. But the 2 studies that you have listed have been shown to be pretty shaky and yet you continue to end all of your points with "well this is a big issue because 43% is still a lot" and haven't really tried to get better information.
Where is this going? What should 100% of MFP be doing because of this information? Even if the link you posted is correct and "43% is a lot of people." Okay.... 57% is even more people.... Should I make PSA that 57% of people don't have insulin resistance?
Where are the two studies shaky? One poster pointed out how certain populations were over reported, that's all. That doesn't invalidate an entire study. But, please do go on and explain where the two studies are shaky...and where are the two studies? One is statistics from the ADA and the other is from the CDC. Is the CDC off on their obesity statistics too?
I find your accusations pretty funny about hyper sensitivity. Anyone with half a brain on MFP should know that there is no one solution for all. But, perhaps you missed that.
As I've said a few times...it's about awareness of how incredibly common insulin resistance is and how certain specific things (specific diet changes and exercise) may help those people in particular. Perhaps you don't think awareness should be spread about something that affects 43% of the population. I disagree. I consider that a very big deal and if my dissimination of that information helps, good. It has already helped a few people that have personally reached out to me to thank me. If you find that offensive or of little help, fine. Feel free to skip the thread, hyper defensiveness and all.
Shaky in proving the point that 43% or more of US Adults have Insulin Resistance. That user pointed out that 1) the test was done only once. Even in middle school science, you have to test a subject at 3 times to conclude a final result. 2) The over sampling.. So.. yea... the information is shaky. Care to explain why you think that this isn't significant?
"I find your accusations pretty funny about hyper sensitivity. Anyone with half a brain on MFP should know that there is no one solution for all. But, perhaps you missed that."
I didn't.. just trying to figure out what your point is or if you have one.
"As I've said a few times...it's about awareness of how incredibly common insulin resistance is and how certain specific things (specific diet changes and exercise) may help those people in particular. Perhaps you don't think awareness should be spread about something that affects 43% of the population. I disagree.."
I haven't really asserted anything. 43%--- still shaky evidence to support that.
" I consider that a very big deal and if my dissimination of that information helps, good. It has already helped a few people that have personally reached out to me to thank me. If you find that offensive or of little help, fine. Feel free to skip the thread, hyper defensiveness and all."
While your cause may be good... building a cause on bad information and defending said bad information makes your cause/ awareness counter-productive. Instead of actually raising awareness on a real issue, you've just spread miss information.0 -
“Why is it cold outside?” The answer is “because it’s not hot.” Pretty dumb answer. This is the exact same answer given when people ask the question “why are we fat?” answer is “it’s about calories, you consume more than you burn” is the typical answer. It explains absolutely nothing.
People preach caloric restriction and exercise as the way to lose excess body fat. If someone had to eat a lot of calories, what methods would they use to achieve greater hunger to eat those calories? Eat less exercise more. See the problem? Sure if you keep track of caloric intake it will produce results. It doesn’t solve anything though. Is your goal to be here on this site tracking calories the rest of your life?
Simple carbs have this effect on a lot of people. They are highly caloric dense, and make us hungrier sooner for the same amount of calories as other macro nutrient ratios. Genetics is the biggest factor, some can get away with high amount of sugar, we all know that person that eats junk food all day and is thin as a rail. I am proposing most of us have various degree’s of insulin resistances, you have to find the proper macros for you to achieve effortless weight loss. You will feel fuller, with less calories for longer periods of time. This is what is meant when someone says “calories don’t matter.” They don’t, if you hit the proper macronutrients for your body, you won’t have to count calories, they don’t matter, your body will self-regulate it’s weight. You know… how all animals do without needing to count calories.
ETA: Everyone lowers insulin concentration when they lose weight, most don’t even realize it. They start to eat less processed foods(high in sugar), lowers insulin, they also start to exercise, which also lowers insulin levels. Some might even just cut calories directly, by cutting calories you also automatically reduce carbs which also lowers insulin levels. If you lose weight, you have lowered insulin levels. Insulin is an anabolic hormone, it's not going to be in elevated concentrations if you're catabolic(losing fat). It's against basic human physiology.0 -
I'm just going to leave this link here, since it provides information about insulin resistance that have been debated in the thread:
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/insulinresistance/
What use is "leaving something here" without an explanation as to how it's at all relevant? Since when did copy/pasting webpages become a contribution to a discussion? What you copy/pasted is nothing new to me - what in particular do you think it adds to this discussion?
But if you're referring to my chicken and egg statement earlier in this thread, I'll elaborate a bit on that since chicken and egg probably isn't a 100% accurate analogy for what I meant. Insulin resistance can make it more difficult to lose weight, particularly so depending on the composition of your diet. On the other hand, one of the best ways to treat insulin resistance and improve insulin sensitivity is to lose weight. So you can get stuck in a bit of a vicious cycle, where you're struggling to lose weight with a diet that may be perfectly acceptable for someone whose body handles insulin properly and you're not improving your insulin resistance because you aren't dropping the weight. So in terms of what came first, it was the weight - but the insulin resistance can affect your ability to lose the weight in some circumstances. That's all I was trying to say. It's not an excuse for not losing, but it can make life more difficult by making it more difficult to lose and easier to gain weight. Personally, I don't really pay much attention to excuses, but practically speaking I think you should pay attention to optimal ways of affecting body composition and for some people that means understanding things like insulin resistance and how to deal with them.
As for the statistics, oversampling and the like - honestly, who cares if the numbers are off. Even if they were way off, say 50% exaggerated, that's still a lot of people who have at least some degree of insulin resistance. And ultimately I think that's the point. It doesn't matter if it's 20% or 40% or whatever - it's a lot of people, and thus it's something that people should probably be aware of.
I provided the link because I saw quite a bit of back and forth between people on both sides of the argument concerning the causes of insulin resistance, and I thought some actual data rather than anecdotal arguments would be beneficial. I wasn't alluding to you specifically when using the chicken or egg phrasing.
I'm not of one those people who believes insulin resistance doesn't exist. I absolutely believe it exists, and I agree with you that how you set up your macros can impact your success with losing weight. I've never said anything to the contrary on that matter. However I have seen people claim that insulin resistance was the cause of their weight gain - some with actual medical conditions that cause insulin resistance and therefore would play a role in their weight gain, and others who have gained weight and want to believe that they are insulin resistant and it's the carbs, and not that they were overeating high calorie foods. I felt the link accurately covered both the lifestyle choices that lead to insulin resistance as well as factors that are out of our hands that cause it as well.
Now, concerning the statistics, it has been repeated several times in this thread that the purpose is to raise awareness of insulin resistance based on the 40% statistic and how that is a significant portion of the population. But when the surveys that statistic was extrapolated from have methodological errors and oversampling of populations who are predisposed to insulin resistance anyway, one has to question the validity of the estimate and whether this is really a significant issue that people need to be concerned about first and foremost.
Do some people have it? Yes. It is something people who are having difficulty losing weight should consult their doctor about? Of course, which is why people in this community ask if the person has any medical issues or if they have been in for testing when they report that they have been unable to lose weight and their logging indicates that they are not overeating, overestimating calorie burn, or any other Occam's Razor-style explanation for not losing weight.
Do over 40% of the US adult population have it? Based on what I and others have pointed out concerning the data - probably not. Which is why I took the time to explain why the statistic is questionable for those in the community who are reading this thread and bring focus to the facts.0 -
OP,
What's the application here? Awareness? Low-carb dieting for all? I cannot read the point between your hyper- defensiveness and unwillingness to consider anything other than your own opinion. I'd really like to consider your point. I love information. But the 2 studies that you have listed have been shown to be pretty shaky and yet you continue to end all of your points with "well this is a big issue because 43% is still a lot" and haven't really tried to get better information.
Where is this going? What should 100% of MFP be doing because of this information? Even if the link you posted is correct and "43% is a lot of people." Okay.... 57% is even more people.... Should I make PSA that 57% of people don't have insulin resistance?
Where are the two studies shaky? One poster pointed out how certain populations were over sampled, that's all. You do realize that is usually the case for minority groups so that the study can get accurate numbers on those minority groups? She doesn't point out why the oversampling in this particular case was inaccurate or wrong -- I don't see a reason for that to be the case and she hasn't provided one AT ALL.
Then she complains that the diagnosis was based on ONE physical exam and ONE blood test. The report numbers are based on either fasting blood glucose levels of A1C test. Ugh, once pretty darn common in diabetes/insulin resistance. Especially for those using the A1C test as it gives you a read on sugar issues for the past 2-3 months. Once again, gold standard for such diagnosis. So, where is the problem again? Oh, she doesn't say.
She just states the obvious and acts as if it's a problem or references how it could be a problem in other scenarios (i.e. the diagnosis of other diseases) but not how it actually applies the very scenario at issue. And people like you apparently can't tell the difference.
That doesn't invalidate an entire study. But, please do go on and explain where the two studies are shaky...and where are the two studies? One is statistics from the ADA and the other is from the CDC. Is the CDC off on their obesity statistics too?
I find your accusations pretty funny about hyper sensitivity. Anyone with half a brain on MFP should know that there is no one solution for all. But, perhaps you missed that. Inadequate reading comprehension seems to be a serious issue on MFP, though I have no peer-reviewed study to support that. Just anecdotal evidence.
As I've said a few times...it's about awareness of how incredibly common insulin resistance is and how certain specific things (specific diet changes and exercise) may help those people in particular. If you go back and read the original post, that's all pretty apparent.
Perhaps you don't think awareness should be spread about something that affects 43% of the population. I disagree. I consider that a very big deal and if my dissemination of that information helps, good. It has already helped a few people that have personally reached out to me to thank me. If you find that offensive or of little help, fine. Feel free to skip the thread, hyper defensiveness and all.
Here's the full report (though this will actually require you to read it): http://professional.diabetes.org/admin/userfiles/0 - sean/fastfacts march 2013.pdf
Replied before I saw the edited version. So, basically, I write one paragraph asking you to get to the point and from that you conclude:
People like me? People like me, asking questions and giving you a chance to prove your point?
"And people like you apparently can't tell the difference.""I find your accusations pretty funny about hyper sensitivity. Anyone with half a brain on MFP should know that there is no one solution for all. But, perhaps you missed that. Inadequate reading comprehension seems to be a serious issue on MFP, though I have no peer-reviewed study to support that. Just anecdotal evidence."
I must not have half a brain, I'm wasting my effort actually trying to understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. These responses aren't defensive at all. So funny of me to assume though.
"As I've said a few times...it's about awareness of how incredibly common insulin resistance is and how certain specific things (specific diet changes and exercise) may help those people in particular. If you go back and read the original post, that's all pretty apparent."
Help with what? I read the original post. Once when I was just reading through the thread and a second time before I replied to see what your point is."Perhaps you don't think awareness should be spread about something that affects 43% of the population. I disagree. I consider that a very big deal and if my dissemination of that information helps, good. It has already helped a few people that have personally reached out to me to thank me. If you find that offensive or of little help, fine. Feel free to skip the thread, hyper defensiveness and all."
I didn't assert my opinion at all other than you weren't making your point clear."Here's the full report (though this will actually require you to read it): http://professional.diabetes.org/admin/userfiles/0 - sean/fastfacts march 2013.pdf"
Is this some kind a quip to say that I haven't read what you've said? Why all the hostility? I'm legit giving you a listening unbias ear. I feel nothing in regards to this subject... I don't have a strong opinion on either side... I'm just reading this conversation.
Edit: trying to add quotes to make it more readable.0 -
OP,
What's the application here? Awareness? Low-carb dieting for all? I cannot read the point between your hyper- defensiveness and unwillingness to consider anything other than your own opinion. I'd really like to consider your point. I love information. But the 2 studies that you have listed have been shown to be pretty shaky and yet you continue to end all of your points with "well this is a big issue because 43% is still a lot" and haven't really tried to get better information.
Where is this going? What should 100% of MFP be doing because of this information? Even if the link you posted is correct and "43% is a lot of people." Okay.... 57% is even more people.... Should I make PSA that 57% of people don't have insulin resistance?
Where are the two studies shaky? One poster pointed out how certain populations were over reported, that's all. That doesn't invalidate an entire study. But, please do go on and explain where the two studies are shaky...and where are the two studies? One is statistics from the ADA and the other is from the CDC. Is the CDC off on their obesity statistics too?
I find your accusations pretty funny about hyper sensitivity. Anyone with half a brain on MFP should know that there is no one solution for all. But, perhaps you missed that.
As I've said a few times...it's about awareness of how incredibly common insulin resistance is and how certain specific things (specific diet changes and exercise) may help those people in particular. Perhaps you don't think awareness should be spread about something that affects 43% of the population. I disagree. I consider that a very big deal and if my dissimination of that information helps, good. It has already helped a few people that have personally reached out to me to thank me. If you find that offensive or of little help, fine. Feel free to skip the thread, hyper defensiveness and all.
Shaky in proving the point that 43% or more of US Adults have Insulin Resistance. That user pointed out that 1) the test was done only once. Even in middle school science, you have to test a subject at 3 times to conclude a final result. 2) The over sampling.. So.. yea... the information is shaky. Care to explain why you think that this isn't significant?
"I find your accusations pretty funny about hyper sensitivity. Anyone with half a brain on MFP should know that there is no one solution for all. But, perhaps you missed that."
I didn't.. just trying to figure out what your point is or if you have one.
"As I've said a few times...it's about awareness of how incredibly common insulin resistance is and how certain specific things (specific diet changes and exercise) may help those people in particular. Perhaps you don't think awareness should be spread about something that affects 43% of the population. I disagree.."
I haven't really asserted anything. 43%--- still shaky evidence to support that.
" I consider that a very big deal and if my dissimination of that information helps, good. It has already helped a few people that have personally reached out to me to thank me. If you find that offensive or of little help, fine. Feel free to skip the thread, hyper defensiveness and all."
While your cause may be good... building a cause on bad information and defending said bad information makes your cause/ awareness counter-productive. Instead of actually raising awareness on a real issue, you've just spread miss information.
Sure. Here we go.Shaky in proving the point that 43% or more of US Adults have Insulin Resistance. That user pointed out that 1) the test was done only once. Even in middle school science, you have to test a subject at 3 times to conclude a final result. 2) The over sampling.. So.. yea... the information is shaky. Care to explain why you think that this isn't significant?
Test 3 times? Are you insane. I've never had one of my doctors run tests 3 times! In fact, I've never had them run any tests more than once unless there was some reason to (i.e. lab had an issue, results were skewed, symptoms of something but not matching with blood tests, etc.). They will sometimes run multiple tests when they think someone is in the early stages but it hasn't shown up in blood tests yet. But, when they get back a positive that aligns with the symptoms, they don't keep doing tests. Where in the heck do you live that this happens? That is asinine.
Oversampling -- Once again, oversampling is common so that the numbers for minority groups are accurate. If you don't oversample minority groups, then you run the risk of having inaccurate numbers due to inadequate sample size. Over sampling can be done incorrectly, but there is no indication of this that I've seen in the study or that was alleged by the earlier poster or you. So, once again, what was incorrect about the oversampling? And, let's keep in mind that the sample size is around 20,000.
And we're dealing with huge institutions that are specifically versed in this -- the American Diabetes Association, Center for Disease Control, etc. -- groups that actually specialize in these sorts of analyses. Just because you don't understand how doctors test for diabetes or how oversampling works in population studies doesn't make the underlying study shaky or inadequate.0 -
I'm just going to leave this link here, since it provides information about insulin resistance that have been debated in the thread:
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/insulinresistance/
What use is "leaving something here" without an explanation as to how it's at all relevant? Since when did copy/pasting webpages become a contribution to a discussion? What you copy/pasted is nothing new to me - what in particular do you think it adds to this discussion?
But if you're referring to my chicken and egg statement earlier in this thread, I'll elaborate a bit on that since chicken and egg probably isn't a 100% accurate analogy for what I meant. Insulin resistance can make it more difficult to lose weight, particularly so depending on the composition of your diet. On the other hand, one of the best ways to treat insulin resistance and improve insulin sensitivity is to lose weight. So you can get stuck in a bit of a vicious cycle, where you're struggling to lose weight with a diet that may be perfectly acceptable for someone whose body handles insulin properly and you're not improving your insulin resistance because you aren't dropping the weight. So in terms of what came first, it was the weight - but the insulin resistance can affect your ability to lose the weight in some circumstances. That's all I was trying to say. It's not an excuse for not losing, but it can make life more difficult by making it more difficult to lose and easier to gain weight. Personally, I don't really pay much attention to excuses, but practically speaking I think you should pay attention to optimal ways of affecting body composition and for some people that means understanding things like insulin resistance and how to deal with them.
As for the statistics, oversampling and the like - honestly, who cares if the numbers are off. Even if they were way off, say 50% exaggerated, that's still a lot of people who have at least some degree of insulin resistance. And ultimately I think that's the point. It doesn't matter if it's 20% or 40% or whatever - it's a lot of people, and thus it's something that people should probably be aware of.
I provided the link because I saw quite a bit of back and forth between people on both sides of the argument concerning the causes of insulin resistance, and I thought some actual data rather than anecdotal arguments would be beneficial. I wasn't alluding to you specifically when using the chicken or egg phrasing.
I'm not of one those people who believes insulin resistance doesn't exist. I absolutely believe it exists, and I agree with you that how you set up your macros can impact your success with losing weight. I've never said anything to the contrary on that matter. However I have seen people claim that insulin resistance was the cause of their weight gain - some with actual medical conditions that cause insulin resistance and therefore would play a role in their weight gain, and others who have gained weight and want to believe that they are insulin resistant and it's the carbs, and not that they were overeating high calorie foods. I felt the link accurately covered both the lifestyle choices that lead to insulin resistance as well as factors that are out of our hands that cause it as well.
Now, concerning the statistics, it has been repeated several times in this thread that the purpose is to raise awareness of insulin resistance based on the 40% statistic and how that is a significant portion of the population. But when the surveys that statistic was extrapolated from have methodological errors and oversampling of populations who are predisposed to insulin resistance anyway, one has to question the validity of the estimate and whether this is really a significant issue that people need to be concerned about first and foremost.
Do some people have it? Yes. It is something people who are having difficulty losing weight should consult their doctor about? Of course, which is why people in this community ask if the person has any medical issues or if they have been in for testing when they report that they have been unable to lose weight and their logging indicates that they are not overeating, overestimating calorie burn, or any other Occam's Razor-style explanation for not losing weight.
Do over 40% of the US adult population have it? Based on what I and others have pointed out concerning the data - probably not. Which is why I took the time to explain why the statistic is questionable for those in the community who are reading this thread and bring focus to the facts.
Once again, how was the oversampling wrong? From what I can tell they did not incorrectly extroplate the oversampling. The oversampling merely helped them get better statistics for the minority groups. Am I missing something? If so, please point it out.0 -
OP,
What's the application here? Awareness? Low-carb dieting for all? I cannot read the point between your hyper- defensiveness and unwillingness to consider anything other than your own opinion. I'd really like to consider your point. I love information. But the 2 studies that you have listed have been shown to be pretty shaky and yet you continue to end all of your points with "well this is a big issue because 43% is still a lot" and haven't really tried to get better information.
Where is this going? What should 100% of MFP be doing because of this information? Even if the link you posted is correct and "43% is a lot of people." Okay.... 57% is even more people.... Should I make PSA that 57% of people don't have insulin resistance?
Where are the two studies shaky? One poster pointed out how certain populations were over sampled, that's all. You do realize that is usually the case for minority groups so that the study can get accurate numbers on those minority groups? She doesn't point out why the oversampling in this particular case was inaccurate or wrong -- I don't see a reason for that to be the case and she hasn't provided one AT ALL.
Then she complains that the diagnosis was based on ONE physical exam and ONE blood test. The report numbers are based on either fasting blood glucose levels of A1C test. Ugh, once pretty darn common in diabetes/insulin resistance. Especially for those using the A1C test as it gives you a read on sugar issues for the past 2-3 months. Once again, gold standard for such diagnosis. So, where is the problem again? Oh, she doesn't say.
She just states the obvious and acts as if it's a problem or references how it could be a problem in other scenarios (i.e. the diagnosis of other diseases) but not how it actually applies the very scenario at issue. And people like you apparently can't tell the difference.
That doesn't invalidate an entire study. But, please do go on and explain where the two studies are shaky...and where are the two studies? One is statistics from the ADA and the other is from the CDC. Is the CDC off on their obesity statistics too?
I find your accusations pretty funny about hyper sensitivity. Anyone with half a brain on MFP should know that there is no one solution for all. But, perhaps you missed that. Inadequate reading comprehension seems to be a serious issue on MFP, though I have no peer-reviewed study to support that. Just anecdotal evidence.
As I've said a few times...it's about awareness of how incredibly common insulin resistance is and how certain specific things (specific diet changes and exercise) may help those people in particular. If you go back and read the original post, that's all pretty apparent.
Perhaps you don't think awareness should be spread about something that affects 43% of the population. I disagree. I consider that a very big deal and if my dissemination of that information helps, good. It has already helped a few people that have personally reached out to me to thank me. If you find that offensive or of little help, fine. Feel free to skip the thread, hyper defensiveness and all.
Here's the full report (though this will actually require you to read it): http://professional.diabetes.org/admin/userfiles/0 - sean/fastfacts march 2013.pdf
Replied before I saw the edited version. So, basically, I write one paragraph asking you to get to the point and from that you conclude:
People like me? People like me, asking questions and giving you a chance to prove your point?
"And people like you apparently can't tell the difference.""I find your accusations pretty funny about hyper sensitivity. Anyone with half a brain on MFP should know that there is no one solution for all. But, perhaps you missed that. Inadequate reading comprehension seems to be a serious issue on MFP, though I have no peer-reviewed study to support that. Just anecdotal evidence."
I must not have half a brain, I'm wasting my effort actually trying to understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. These responses aren't defensive at all. So funny of me to assume though.
"As I've said a few times...it's about awareness of how incredibly common insulin resistance is and how certain specific things (specific diet changes and exercise) may help those people in particular. If you go back and read the original post, that's all pretty apparent."
Help with what? I read the original post. Once when I was just reading through the thread and a second time before I replied to see what your point is."Perhaps you don't think awareness should be spread about something that affects 43% of the population. I disagree. I consider that a very big deal and if my dissemination of that information helps, good. It has already helped a few people that have personally reached out to me to thank me. If you find that offensive or of little help, fine. Feel free to skip the thread, hyper defensiveness and all."
I didn't assert my opinion at all other than you weren't making your point clear."Here's the full report (though this will actually require you to read it): http://professional.diabetes.org/admin/userfiles/0 - sean/fastfacts march 2013.pdf"
Is this some kind a quip to say that I haven't read what you've said? Why all the hostility? I'm legit giving you a listening unbias ear. I feel nothing in regards to this subject... I don't have a strong opinion on either side... I'm just reading this conversation.
Edit: trying to add quotes to make it more readable.
Just a little interpersonal skills note. When you start off attacking someone, they tend to get defensive. One of your opening statements was:
"I cannot read the point between your hyper- defensiveness and unwillingness to consider anything other than your own opinion."
Perhaps you didn't mean it as an attack and it's getting lost in translation with message board posting, but it seems more than a little confusing to me that you start off with that tone and then later claim just general confusion.0 -
OP,
What's the application here? Awareness? Low-carb dieting for all? I cannot read the point between your hyper- defensiveness and unwillingness to consider anything other than your own opinion. I'd really like to consider your point. I love information. But the 2 studies that you have listed have been shown to be pretty shaky and yet you continue to end all of your points with "well this is a big issue because 43% is still a lot" and haven't really tried to get better information.
Where is this going? What should 100% of MFP be doing because of this information? Even if the link you posted is correct and "43% is a lot of people." Okay.... 57% is even more people.... Should I make PSA that 57% of people don't have insulin resistance?
Where are the two studies shaky? One poster pointed out how certain populations were over sampled, that's all. You do realize that is usually the case for minority groups so that the study can get accurate numbers on those minority groups? She doesn't point out why the oversampling in this particular case was inaccurate or wrong -- I don't see a reason for that to be the case and she hasn't provided one AT ALL.
Then she complains that the diagnosis was based on ONE physical exam and ONE blood test. The report numbers are based on either fasting blood glucose levels of A1C test. Ugh, once pretty darn common in diabetes/insulin resistance. Especially for those using the A1C test as it gives you a read on sugar issues for the past 2-3 months. Once again, gold standard for such diagnosis. So, where is the problem again? Oh, she doesn't say.
She just states the obvious and acts as if it's a problem or references how it could be a problem in other scenarios (i.e. the diagnosis of other diseases) but not how it actually applies the very scenario at issue. And people like you apparently can't tell the difference.
That doesn't invalidate an entire study. But, please do go on and explain where the two studies are shaky...and where are the two studies? One is statistics from the ADA and the other is from the CDC. Is the CDC off on their obesity statistics too?
I find your accusations pretty funny about hyper sensitivity. Anyone with half a brain on MFP should know that there is no one solution for all. But, perhaps you missed that. Inadequate reading comprehension seems to be a serious issue on MFP, though I have no peer-reviewed study to support that. Just anecdotal evidence.
As I've said a few times...it's about awareness of how incredibly common insulin resistance is and how certain specific things (specific diet changes and exercise) may help those people in particular. If you go back and read the original post, that's all pretty apparent.
Perhaps you don't think awareness should be spread about something that affects 43% of the population. I disagree. I consider that a very big deal and if my dissemination of that information helps, good. It has already helped a few people that have personally reached out to me to thank me. If you find that offensive or of little help, fine. Feel free to skip the thread, hyper defensiveness and all.
Here's the full report (though this will actually require you to read it): http://professional.diabetes.org/admin/userfiles/0 - sean/fastfacts march 2013.pdf
Replied before I saw the edited version. So, basically, I write one paragraph asking you to get to the point and from that you conclude:
People like me? People like me, asking questions and giving you a chance to prove your point?
"And people like you apparently can't tell the difference.""I find your accusations pretty funny about hyper sensitivity. Anyone with half a brain on MFP should know that there is no one solution for all. But, perhaps you missed that. Inadequate reading comprehension seems to be a serious issue on MFP, though I have no peer-reviewed study to support that. Just anecdotal evidence."
I must not have half a brain, I'm wasting my effort actually trying to understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. These responses aren't defensive at all. So funny of me to assume though.
"As I've said a few times...it's about awareness of how incredibly common insulin resistance is and how certain specific things (specific diet changes and exercise) may help those people in particular. If you go back and read the original post, that's all pretty apparent."
Help with what? I read the original post. Once when I was just reading through the thread and a second time before I replied to see what your point is."Perhaps you don't think awareness should be spread about something that affects 43% of the population. I disagree. I consider that a very big deal and if my dissemination of that information helps, good. It has already helped a few people that have personally reached out to me to thank me. If you find that offensive or of little help, fine. Feel free to skip the thread, hyper defensiveness and all."
I didn't assert my opinion at all other than you weren't making your point clear."Here's the full report (though this will actually require you to read it): http://professional.diabetes.org/admin/userfiles/0 - sean/fastfacts march 2013.pdf"
Is this some kind a quip to say that I haven't read what you've said? Why all the hostility? I'm legit giving you a listening unbias ear. I feel nothing in regards to this subject... I don't have a strong opinion on either side... I'm just reading this conversation.
Edit: trying to add quotes to make it more readable.
Just a little interpersonal skills note. When you start off attacking someone, they tend to get defensive. One of your opening statements was:
"I cannot read the point between your hyper- defensiveness and unwillingness to consider anything other than your own opinion."
Perhaps you didn't mean it as an attack and it's getting lost in translation with message board posting, but it seems more than a little confusing to me that you start off with that tone and then later claim just general confusion.
yea, I didn't see it as an attack but as what I see as happening. I'm just being honest... I didn't know where your point was or where it was going because most of what I see/saw was hyper-defensive and unwillingness to see anything else. My favorite thing to do is debate and get better information than what I already have-- I'll even play the devils advocate and argue the position opposite of what I actually believe so that I can hear responses better than my own and learn from them. When the argument gets emotionally defensive the actual point is unclear.0 -
Test 3 times? Are you insane. I've never had one of my doctors run tests 3 times! In fact, I've never had them run any tests more than once unless there was some reason to (i.e. lab had an issue, results were skewed, symptoms of something but not matching with blood tests, etc.).
Given how prevalent false positives are with any number of tests, your shock here seems feigned. If there is some reason that the tests used here don't have a substantial false positive risk, why not share that information? This is just one reason to be extremely skeptical of the significance of numbers based on speculation about undiagnosed conditions.
Plus, since the argument here is that people will not be able to lose weight using common place advice, you'd need to show that these undiagnosed populations fall into that category. But plenty of diagnosed people do not--even people with full fledged Type II can lose based largely on CICO (this is true for people I know, anyway), although watching blood sugar and controlling carbs is of course important.
But beyond that, if people are struggling because of carbs, that's something that tracking and logging and paying attention to one's diet will reveal. I don't believe I'm IR (although I've not been tested and was fat, so under your theory we should assume I am), but I did modify my consumption of carbs to make it easier to lose weight--I consider that to be in many cases just common sense.0 -
I'm just going to leave this link here, since it provides information about insulin resistance that have been debated in the thread:
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/insulinresistance/
What use is "leaving something here" without an explanation as to how it's at all relevant? Since when did copy/pasting webpages become a contribution to a discussion? What you copy/pasted is nothing new to me - what in particular do you think it adds to this discussion?
But if you're referring to my chicken and egg statement earlier in this thread, I'll elaborate a bit on that since chicken and egg probably isn't a 100% accurate analogy for what I meant. Insulin resistance can make it more difficult to lose weight, particularly so depending on the composition of your diet. On the other hand, one of the best ways to treat insulin resistance and improve insulin sensitivity is to lose weight. So you can get stuck in a bit of a vicious cycle, where you're struggling to lose weight with a diet that may be perfectly acceptable for someone whose body handles insulin properly and you're not improving your insulin resistance because you aren't dropping the weight. So in terms of what came first, it was the weight - but the insulin resistance can affect your ability to lose the weight in some circumstances. That's all I was trying to say. It's not an excuse for not losing, but it can make life more difficult by making it more difficult to lose and easier to gain weight. Personally, I don't really pay much attention to excuses, but practically speaking I think you should pay attention to optimal ways of affecting body composition and for some people that means understanding things like insulin resistance and how to deal with them.
As for the statistics, oversampling and the like - honestly, who cares if the numbers are off. Even if they were way off, say 50% exaggerated, that's still a lot of people who have at least some degree of insulin resistance. And ultimately I think that's the point. It doesn't matter if it's 20% or 40% or whatever - it's a lot of people, and thus it's something that people should probably be aware of.
I provided the link because I saw quite a bit of back and forth between people on both sides of the argument concerning the causes of insulin resistance, and I thought some actual data rather than anecdotal arguments would be beneficial. I wasn't alluding to you specifically when using the chicken or egg phrasing.
I'm not of one those people who believes insulin resistance doesn't exist. I absolutely believe it exists, and I agree with you that how you set up your macros can impact your success with losing weight. I've never said anything to the contrary on that matter. However I have seen people claim that insulin resistance was the cause of their weight gain - some with actual medical conditions that cause insulin resistance and therefore would play a role in their weight gain, and others who have gained weight and want to believe that they are insulin resistant and it's the carbs, and not that they were overeating high calorie foods. I felt the link accurately covered both the lifestyle choices that lead to insulin resistance as well as factors that are out of our hands that cause it as well.
Now, concerning the statistics, it has been repeated several times in this thread that the purpose is to raise awareness of insulin resistance based on the 40% statistic and how that is a significant portion of the population. But when the surveys that statistic was extrapolated from have methodological errors and oversampling of populations who are predisposed to insulin resistance anyway, one has to question the validity of the estimate and whether this is really a significant issue that people need to be concerned about first and foremost.
Do some people have it? Yes. It is something people who are having difficulty losing weight should consult their doctor about? Of course, which is why people in this community ask if the person has any medical issues or if they have been in for testing when they report that they have been unable to lose weight and their logging indicates that they are not overeating, overestimating calorie burn, or any other Occam's Razor-style explanation for not losing weight.
Do over 40% of the US adult population have it? Based on what I and others have pointed out concerning the data - probably not. Which is why I took the time to explain why the statistic is questionable for those in the community who are reading this thread and bring focus to the facts.
Once again, how was the oversampling wrong? From what I can tell they did not incorrectly extroplate the oversampling. The oversampling merely helped them get better statistics for the minority groups. Am I missing something? If so, please point it out.
I'll try to break it down as simply as possible:
1. The ADA numbers are based on an NHANES survey, which included one physical exam at one point in time. A fasting glucose or A1C test at one point in time is not enough to diagnose someone. Which is what I pointed out when I discussed gestational diabetes tests in pregnant women, in which a 1 hr fasting glucose test is performed, and if a positive result is returned, the patient returns for a 3 hr fasting glucose test before a diagnosis is made. Because a positive result on one test and the additional factor that could point to gestational diabetes (being pregnant) isn't enough - it has to be repeated at another point in time to establish it as a concern and not a fluke.
2. Concerning the oversampling, the NHANES study oversampled certain populations. I covered the issues concerning sampling minority populations, low income, and elderly populations that should be considered as impacting the results. The same reasons I listed for those populations are also widely known as increasing the likelihood of obesity and less than optimal health in general - income, food availability, education, language barriers, age. While they may have oversampled in hopes of obtaining more minority samples, the act of doing so in light of the other issues makes their results and application to the general population questionable.
3. Taking into consideration single point in time testing, oversampling of populations who are more likely to be overweight/obese or less than optimal health, and the last post I shared concerning how the oversampled populations are at greater risk for insulin resistance in general, I find the 40% estimate to be questionable.
I don't think any of the concerns listed above are invalid and I believe that members of the MFP community should take them into account when reviewing the information presented in this thread.0 -
Reducing Carbs
Many with insulin resistance find reducing carbs (especially the highly refined ones like bread, pasta, sugar, etc.) helps manage/reduce the cravings and aid in weight loss. The amount of carbs vary, but I personally aim for 100 g/day. Some prefer much lower and go full keto. Others are able to tolerate and prefer more. So, if you're struggling with satiety while staying within a reasonable calorie goal and/or have strong sugar/carb cravings, you may find that reducing your total carbs or eliminating certain types of carbs to be very beneficial.
Thank you for bringing this up. I found out back in March that this was my issue. I reduced my carbs daily to no more than 25g every 4 hours, and the weight just dropped off. I never knew why I had such an issue. I always lost weight pretty easily until I started having Thyroid issue in the past 4-5 years and gained a ton of weight.
Diabetes/Prediabetes/Insulin Resistance statistics from American Diabetes Association: http://professional.diabetes.org/admin/userfiles/0 - sean/fastfacts march 2013.pdf
Obesity statistics from CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm0 -
Lindsey quite frankly you are now the William Dawes of MFP. The AMA is well aware of IR and general physicians in the US have a very simple process: iF you are or near age 45, and are overweight or obese according to your BMI, they recommend a blood test to determine if you pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. Why 45? 1. Most people younger then 45 do not go to their GP regularly since they have no major health issues. It is isn't very complicated.0
-
Test 3 times? Are you insane. I've never had one of my doctors run tests 3 times! In fact, I've never had them run any tests more than once unless there was some reason to (i.e. lab had an issue, results were skewed, symptoms of something but not matching with blood tests, etc.).
Given how prevalent false positives are with any number of tests, your shock here seems feigned. If there is some reason that the tests used here don't have a substantial false positive risk, why not share that information? This is just one reason to be extremely skeptical of the significance of numbers based on speculation about undiagnosed conditions.
Plus, since the argument here is that people will not be able to lose weight using common place advice, you'd need to show that these undiagnosed populations fall into that category. But plenty of diagnosed people do not--even people with full fledged Type II can lose based largely on CICO (this is true for people I know, anyway), although watching blood sugar and controlling carbs is of course important.
But beyond that, if people are struggling because of carbs, that's something that tracking and logging and paying attention to one's diet will reveal. I don't believe I'm IR (although I've not been tested and was fat, so under your theory we should assume I am), but I did modify my consumption of carbs to make it easier to lose weight--I consider that to be in many cases just common sense.
Can we just stick with the issues at hand rather than discussing the prevalence of false positives for disease in general, especially that may not apply?
Is testing for diabetes prone to false positives? Not from any literature I've seen. If anything I've seen it prone to false negatives. Do you have any information that says that it is prone to false positives? If not, you're just throwing out general issues that don't necessarily apply. That seems to be unnecessarily muddying the waters.0 -
Is testing for diabetes prone to false positives? Not from any literature I've seen.
kgeyser's example suggests that it is. Whenever we are talking about alleged undiagnosed sufferers that dramatically increase the percentages claimed to suffer from a condition, especially a condition that is (a) relatively easily diagnosed; and (b) much more common as your likelihood of seeing a doctor (here, because of increased age) increases, then there's a huge problem with the stats.
More significantly, as I have mentioned several times, what is the point? You seem to think that we should assume posters struggling with weight loss have some kind of metabolic issue, but IF they have one that affects how they should eat, that is something that collecting information and using common sense will demonstrate--so the advice given in general continues to apply.0 -
yea, I didn't see it as an attack but as what I see as happening. I'm just being honest... I didn't know where your point was or where it was going because most of what I see/saw was hyper-defensive and unwillingness to see anything else. My favorite thing to do is debate and get better information than what I already have-- I'll even play the devils advocate and argue the position opposite of what I actually believe so that I can hear responses better than my own and learn from them. When the argument gets emotionally defensive the actual point is unclear.
Hmmm...interesting. So when it's you, it's just an honest observation. But, when it's me, it's hyper defensiveness. Interesting that your sensitivity meter is so sensitive in one direction but so insensitive in the other. I'd say my hyper defensiveness is just enthusiastically countering arguments/assertions presented -- like yours that the findings were shaky.0 -
yea, I didn't see it as an attack but as what I see as happening. I'm just being honest... I didn't know where your point was or where it was going because most of what I see/saw was hyper-defensive and unwillingness to see anything else. My favorite thing to do is debate and get better information than what I already have-- I'll even play the devils advocate and argue the position opposite of what I actually believe so that I can hear responses better than my own and learn from them. When the argument gets emotionally defensive the actual point is unclear.
Hmmm...interesting. So when it's you, it's just an honest observation. But, when it's me, it's hyper sensitivity. Interesting that your sensitivity meter is so sensitive in one direction but so insensitive in the other. I'd say my hyper defensiveness is just enthusiastically countering arguments/assertions presented -- like yours that the findings were shaky.
Ok.0 -
I'll try to break it down as simply as possible:
1. The ADA numbers are based on an NHANES survey, which included one physical exam at one point in time. A fasting glucose or A1C test at one point in time is not enough to diagnose someone. Which is what I pointed out when I discussed gestational diabetes tests in pregnant women, in which a 1 hr fasting glucose test is performed, and if a positive result is returned, the patient returns for a 3 hr fasting glucose test before a diagnosis is made. Because a positive result on one test and the additional factor that could point to gestational diabetes (being pregnant) isn't enough - it has to be repeated at another point in time to establish it as a concern and not a fluke.
For the vast majority of people, one exam and one blood test is all that is needed for diagnosing someone with insulin resistance (especially when that test is the A1C) because the symptoms align with the expected blood result. I don't know where you've found information otherwise.
I agree with you on the gestational diabetes issue, but (1) do you have any reason to believe that gestational diabetes sufferers were included in these numbers? I couldn't find anything either way. And (2), even if we excluded all pregnant women in the US, that's still only about 6.7 million. So even if you counted all those women (which is obviously silly since that mean every pregnant woman would have had to been incorrectly diagnosed with gestational diabetes and counted in this study), it still means that you'd have 108 million people with insulin resistance. That would only drop the 43.3% to around 41%, right (and with recent numbers it's even higher -- these were in 2010 -- 2012 the numbers are higher)?
In the end, the conclusion is the same: A LOT of people in the US have insulin resistance.2. Concerning the oversampling, the NHANES study oversampled certain populations. I covered the issues concerning sampling minority populations, low income, and elderly populations that should be considered as impacting the results. The same reasons I listed for those populations are also widely known as increasing the likelihood of obesity and less than optimal health in general - income, food availability, education, language barriers, age. While they may have oversampled in hopes of obtaining more minority samples, the act of doing so in light of the other issues makes their results and application to the general population questionable.
Once again, you don't say anything about how the oversampling was done incorrectly. Minority populations are oversampled intentionally so that they can get accurate numbers for that minority. Then those numbers are weighted according to the minority's share of the total population. As far as I can tell, that is EXACTLY what happened here.
As for other factors contributing to obesity, absolutely that's true. But what does that have to do with whether they have insulin resistance AT ALL? If I were making the argument that insulin resistance was the only factor in obesity, sure, that would make sense. But otherwise, it doesn't matter at all. Sure, fatter populations likely have higher incidents of insulin resistance -- and that is perfectly in line with these studies. But that doesn't negate the fact that insulin existence exists.3. Taking into consideration single point in time testing, oversampling of populations who are more likely to be overweight/obese or less than optimal health, and the last post I shared concerning how the oversampled populations are at greater risk for insulin resistance in general, I find the 40% estimate to be questionable.
I don't think any of the concerns listed above are invalid and I believe that members of the MFP community should take them into account when reviewing the information presented in this thread.
Well, I think your conclusions don't make much sense in the totality of the circumstances. And, at best, only reduce the numbers slightly. In fact, since you appear to be rather intelligent and well-spoken, I'd think that this is an intentional attempt to obscure facts in order to dismiss a problem. But, maybe you just really can't see the forest for the trees.
The overall conclusion still holds --- this is a BIG problem in the US that affects a LOT of people.0 -
Lindsey quite frankly you are now the William Dawes of MFP. The AMA is well aware of IR and general physicians in the US have a very simple process: iF you are or near age 45, and are overweight or obese according to your BMI, they recommend a blood test to determine if you pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. Why 45? 1. Most people younger then 45 do not go to their GP regularly since they have no major health issues. It is isn't very complicated.
Thank you. I just know that if I can help anyone else avoid the pitfalls I did with this condition, it is well worth it. Regardless of the naysayers on MFP.0 -
I'll just pull up a chair here...
Not sure why you find it amusing if someone has a medical condition
I saw this post as sitting back to watch both sides hotly debate the issue. Not about finding amusement in people's medical condition.0 -
Is testing for diabetes prone to false positives? Not from any literature I've seen.
kgeyser's example suggests that it is. Whenever we are talking about alleged undiagnosed sufferers that dramatically increase the percentages claimed to suffer from a condition, especially a condition that is (a) relatively easily diagnosed; and (b) much more common as your likelihood of seeing a doctor (here, because of increased age) increases, then there's a huge problem with the stats.
More significantly, as I have mentioned several times, what is the point? You seem to think that we should assume posters struggling with weight loss have some kind of metabolic issue, but IF they have one that affects how they should eat, that is something that collecting information and using common sense will demonstrate--so the advice given in general continues to apply.
Gestational, that may be true. But, it's not for the other from what I'm aware of -- and that would only apply to the fasting blood glucose test anyway, not A1C, which is the one doctors are favoring more these days for this diagnosis.
So, once again, you don't know of anything but you're just ruminating on possibilities? Not all doubts are reasonable.
As for the point, really, you don't understand -- even though I've said it several times before, even bolded. Here it is again (as it was in the original post:
(1) IR is a common problem -- a BIG problem that affect a LOT of people (so the naysayers out there that say that metabolic problems only affect a "handful" or are rare are simply WRONG)
(2) There are things that can help this if you have IR -- namely, (i) consistent exercise and (ii) reducing carbs (they may not be necessary for everyone, but they may greatly aid those with IR because they increase insulin sensitivity)
This isn't that hard, is it?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions