Understanding the blood sugar roller coaster...

bcattoes

We really can't apply causation to diet or obesity. There are obese people who are not insulin resistant, and there are lean people who are. There are people who eat high-CHO diets without issue, and there are people who can't. Obesity and diabetes correlate, and they also correlate with a Westernized diet, which is high in both carbohydrates and fat.

I think you can apply causation to diet and obesity when it comes to insulin resistance. Just because poor diet or obesity doesn't cause it 100% of the time, does not mean they are not a cause. Even if other factors contributed, diet and obesity are still a cause.

1223345

And so it continues. I don't care about you know-it-all, self proclaimed "elite". You are welcome to be as ignorant as you like. What I do know is, I see plenty of people around here going on about how hard they work out and how they keep upping their calories etc... yet still can't LOSE weight. Hmmm..... why oh why can that be?! If you look in the food diaries of those people, you almost always see a list of processed garbage in their diet. When I look and see that complaint and that common thread between complaints, that tells me something.

http://www.diabeteswellbeing.com/diabetes-statistics.html

The ever increasing number of people with diabetes is nothing to sneeze at. Insulin resistance is not that rare as you all seem to believe. If it were so difficult to create insulin problems within the body, the numbers of people with diabetes would not be on the rise. The number of people diagnosed is up almost 10% since 2011. As the amount of processed "food" rich in lovely things like simple carbs, refined sugars, HFCS etc... increases, insulin problems also rise. Ignore it if you will. You will reap what you sow.

Insulin resistance is up because diabetes is up because obesity is up. Junk food as you put it has nothing to do with it for the most part except that junk may be a reason for overeating, and it is the overeating in conjunction with the overall well being of the individual that can influence insulin resistance.

You are welcome to be as blind as you like. It happens for a reason.

1223345

And so it continues. I don't care about you know-it-all, self proclaimed "elite". You are welcome to be as ignorant as you like. What I do know is, I see plenty of people around here going on about how hard they work out and how they keep upping their calories etc... yet still can't LOSE weight. Hmmm..... why oh why can that be?! If you look in the food diaries of those people, you almost always see a list of processed garbage in their diet. When I look and see that complaint and that common thread between complaints, that tells me something.

http://www.diabeteswellbeing.com/diabetes-statistics.html

The ever increasing number of people with diabetes is nothing to sneeze at. Insulin resistance is not that rare as you all seem to believe. If it were so difficult to create insulin problems within the body, the numbers of people with diabetes would not be on the rise. The number of people diagnosed is up almost 10% since 2011. As the amount of processed "food" rich in lovely things like simple carbs, refined sugars, HFCS etc... increases, insulin problems also rise. Ignore it if you will. You will reap what you sow.

I feel like I'm in some kind of religious debate. Self proclaimed elite lol? Seriously lady, your fanaticism has addled whatever reading comprehension you may have initially started with. No one claimed junk food should be the staple of any diet, much less a weight loss diet. What has been said is a calorie is a calorie, for all but those with true medical issues and/or food allergies (obviously).

And by this I don't mean ones with self induced obesity related issues.

As has been said, in the majority of your cases, insulin resistance is the EFFECT of obesity, not the cause. I've helped a fair numbee of people with the kind of stalling issues you described above. The problem was ALWAYS the fault of their training program, overestimated TDEE, or underestimated intake.

ALWAYS.

You go ahead. I refuse to beat a dead horse. I have said what I think. That's all that is needed here.

albertabeefy

Insulin resistance is up because diabetes is up because obesity is up. Junk food as you put it has nothing to do with it for the most part except that junk may be a reason for overeating, and it is the overeating in conjunction with the overall well being of the individual that can influence insulin resistance.

As has been mentioned, insulin-resistance is not "caused" by diabetes. Insulin-resistance is not "caused" by obesity. They are correlated, yes.

I've been involved with the testing of young, lean people (under 10% body fat) with insulin-resistance. They were lean, otherwise healthy individuals. Is there some sort of genetic mitochondrial dysfunction? More testing will need to take place.

The way Type II diabetes and metabolic syndrome are portrayed in the media is that ONLY obese people get insulin-resistance and Type II diabetes, and that simply is NOT the case.

fattofit20

Thank you so much for clarifying. All this blood sugar stuff can be so confusing!

albertabeefy

We really can't apply causation to diet or obesity. There are obese people who are not insulin resistant, and there are lean people who are. There are people who eat high-CHO diets without issue, and there are people who can't. Obesity and diabetes correlate, and they also correlate with a Westernized diet, which is high in both carbohydrates and fat.

I think you can apply causation to diet and obesity when it comes to insulin resistance. Just because poor diet or obesity doesn't cause it 100% of the time, does not mean they are not a cause. Even if other factors contributed, diet and obesity are still a cause.

This becomes an issue of semantics with the word "cause".

From a scientific standpoint, "cause" means the effect is demonstrable and repeatable. If you believe something may "cause" insulin-resistance in "some" people that may fit YOUR definition of cause, but it simply doesn't fit the scientific definition.

songbyrdsweet, having a solid background in science, would be using the scientific method of "cause", and is correct in this case.

bcattoes

Insulin resistance is up because diabetes is up because obesity is up. Junk food as you put it has nothing to do with it for the most part except that junk may be a reason for overeating, and it is the overeating in conjunction with the overall well being of the individual that can influence insulin resistance.

As has been mentioned, insulin-resistance is not "caused" by diabetes. Insulin-resistance is not "caused" by obesity. They are correlated, yes.

I've been involved with the testing of young, lean people (under 10% body fat) with insulin-resistance. They were lean, otherwise healthy individuals. Is there some sort of genetic mitochondrial dysfunction? More testing will need to take place.

The way Type II diabetes and metabolic syndrome are portrayed in the media is that ONLY obese people get insulin-resistance and Type II diabetes, and that simply is NOT the case.

Just because not everyone that gets insulin resistance or diabetes is obese does not mean obesity is not a cause. It would simply mean it's not the only cause.

bcattoes

We really can't apply causation to diet or obesity. There are obese people who are not insulin resistant, and there are lean people who are. There are people who eat high-CHO diets without issue, and there are people who can't. Obesity and diabetes correlate, and they also correlate with a Westernized diet, which is high in both carbohydrates and fat.

I think you can apply causation to diet and obesity when it comes to insulin resistance. Just because poor diet or obesity doesn't cause it 100% of the time, does not mean they are not a cause. Even if other factors contributed, diet and obesity are still a cause.

This becomes an issue of semantics with the word "cause".

From a scientific standpoint, "cause" means the effect is demonstrable and repeatable. If you believe something may "cause" insulin-resistance in "some" people that simply doesn't fit the definition.

songbyrdsweet, having a solid background in science, would be using the scientific method of "cause", and is correct in this case.

Then why keep arguing the semantics, if it's known that semantics is all that being argued? Diabetes and insulin resistance are obesity related diseases. Is that better semantics? Everybody happy now?

albertabeefy

Just because not everyone that gets insulin resistance or diabetes is obese does not mean obesity is not a cause. It would simply mean it's not the only cause.

Again, that's YOUR definition of cause, but NOT the scientific definition.

Even If it were "a" cause (even one of many...) it would have to be the case that EVERY obese person develops insulin-resistance, and that is simply not the case.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, only correct.

albertabeefy

Then why keep arguing the semantics, if it's known that semantics is all that being argued? Diabetes and insulin resistance are obesity related diseases. Is that better semantics? Everybody happy now?

They why are there lean people with both diabetes and insulin-resistance?

Do you see what we're getting at?

1223345

That horse is surely dead by now. I think the strawmen that people create to distract from the real conversation is a reflection of denial in it's ugliest form.

bcattoes

Then why keep arguing the semantics, if it's known that semantics is all that being argued? Diabetes and insulin resistance are obesity related diseases. Is that better semantics? Everybody happy now?

They why are there lean people with both diabetes and insulin-resistance?

Do you see what we're getting at?

No, unless you are suggesting that there can be only one single cause.

Edit: Oops, excuse me. I meant only one single correlation, relationship, increased risk, or acceptable term of your choice.

ldrosophila

There are No arguments from me gives people who have diabetes sort of a handle on what is going on in their body.

I will add that the insulin sensitivity thing may be a "chicken and the egg" argument we don't know really if it's genetics predisposition or diet composition.

This is a nice little article because as we all know diabetes is a game changer.

neanderthin

Insulin resistance is up because diabetes is up because obesity is up. Junk food as you put it has nothing to do with it for the most part except that junk may be a reason for overeating, and it is the overeating in conjunction with the overall well being of the individual that can influence insulin resistance.

As has been mentioned, insulin-resistance is not "caused" by diabetes. Insulin-resistance is not "caused" by obesity. They are correlated, yes.

I've been involved with the testing of young, lean people (under 10% body fat) with insulin-resistance. They were lean, otherwise healthy individuals. Is there some sort of genetic mitochondrial dysfunction? More testing will need to take place.

The way Type II diabetes and metabolic syndrome are portrayed in the media is that ONLY obese people get insulin-resistance and Type II diabetes, and that simply is NOT the case.

Quite right. I was referring to the incidence and it's relationship to diabetes and obesity, not that they're the cause.

albertabeefy

No, unless you are suggesting that there can be only one single cause.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that because something may contribute in a segment of the population, we could possibly classify it as a "contributing factor" but not a "cause".

In the scientific method root-cause analysis is pretty clear on this.

... this is the last I'll say on this:

From a scientific standpoint, "cause" is a condition that produces an effect; AND eliminating the "cause" also eliminates the effect. Both conditions must exist for the condition to be classified as a cause.

When it comes to insulin-resistance, neither obesity nor diet (whether alone or in tandem) can accurately be classified as "cause".

Certainly, in some people they may be "contributing factors" but they simply are not what we classify as a "cause".

neanderthin

No, unless you are suggesting that there can be only one single cause.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that because something may contribute in a segment of the population, we could possibly classify it as a "contributing factor" but not a "cause".

In the scientific method root-cause analysis is pretty clear on this.

... this is the last I'll say on this:

From a scientific standpoint, "cause" is a condition that produces an effect; AND eliminating the "cause" also eliminates the effect. Both conditions must exist for the condition to be classified as a cause.

When it comes to insulin-resistance, neither obesity nor diet (whether alone or in tandem) can accurately be classified as "cause".

Certainly, in some people they may be "contributing factors" but they simply are not what we classify as a "cause".

Exactly.

bcattoes

No, unless you are suggesting that there can be only one single cause.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that because something may contribute in a segment of the population, we could possibly classify it as a "contributing factor" but not a "cause".

In the scientific method root-cause analysis is pretty clear on this.

... this is the last I'll say on this:

From a scientific standpoint, "cause" is a condition that produces an effect; AND eliminating the "cause" also eliminates the effect. Both conditions must exist for the condition to be classified as a cause.

When it comes to insulin-resistance, neither obesity nor diet (whether alone or in tandem) can accurately be classified as "cause".

Certainly, in some people they may be "contributing factors" but they simply are not what we classify as a "cause".

So, because there are people that smoke who do not develop lung cancer, and people develop lung cancer who do not smoke, one should never say "smoking causes cancer"? I'm just not really into arguing semantics.

I'll give you that obesity is not a proven cause. Though using this definition:

From a scientific standpoint, "cause" is a condition that produces an effect; AND eliminating the "cause" also eliminates the effect. Both conditions must exist for the condition to be classified as a cause.

it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.

albertabeefy

(so much for being the last I'll say on this)

...it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.

Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No.

I don't want to be rude or antagonistic, but you seem to be clearly either completely ignorant or totally argumentative. Either way, you are incorrect.

You can believe what you wish, it won't make you correct here.

bcattoes

(so much for being the last I'll say on this)

...it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.

Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No.

I don't want to be rude or antagonistic, but you seem to be clearly either completely ignorant or totally argumentative. Either way, you are incorrect.

You can believe what you wish, it won't make you correct here.

Let's assume I'm ignorant. Can you give me an example of a cause of disease? (any disease, not just diabetes/IR)

neanderthin

(so much for being the last I'll say on this)

...it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.

Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No.

I don't want to be rude or antagonistic, but you seem to be clearly either completely ignorant or totally argumentative. Either way, you are incorrect.

You can believe what you wish, it won't make you correct here.

The Cause and effect fallacy is a big reason why people are easily influenced by headlines or love blogs to get their information....it sounds legit and forget about the actual science.