Understanding the blood sugar roller coaster...
Options
Replies
-
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.(so much for being the last I'll say on this)
Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No....it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.
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.
What do you mean by the "cause and effect fallacy"?0 -
Best description I've ever seen for what my doctor calls my "reactive hypoglycemia". Thanks for sharing this!0
-
Second, no one, not one person on this site that I have EVER SEEN in over two years...says processed food is good for you. But yes, a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss. Any number of REAL, peer reviewed studies (as in...not crap links that the used car salesman on the corner could have written) have proven it. Additionally...it it weren't true, I couldn't have done what I did first hand.
I have seen posts on MFP say that processed food is good for you. I was once even told "there is plenty of scientific evidence that carbs, protein and fat are good for us" as a reason why McD was healthy.
There are plenty of "prcessed foods" that are good for you, and this is generally agreed apon by all but the most hardcore true believers of the cult of Paleo.
Greek Yogurt is a highly processed food. It is also near universally agreed that it belongs in the "good for you" column. There are plenty of other examples like this.0 -
As has been mentioned, insulin-resistance is not "caused" by diabetes. Insulin-resistance is not "caused" by obesity. They are correlated, yes.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.
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.
And on the other hand, there are individuals who are incredibly resistant to HFD-induced metabolic derangement....and I wish I could steal their mitochondria. :P0 -
Awesome thread.0
-
Second, no one, not one person on this site that I have EVER SEEN in over two years...says processed food is good for you. But yes, a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss. Any number of REAL, peer reviewed studies (as in...not crap links that the used car salesman on the corner could have written) have proven it. Additionally...it it weren't true, I couldn't have done what I did first hand.
I have seen posts on MFP say that processed food is good for you. I was once even told "there is plenty of scientific evidence that carbs, protein and fat are good for us" as a reason why McD was healthy.
There are plenty of "prcessed foods" that are good for you, and this is generally agreed apon by all but the most hardcore true believers of the cult of Paleo.
Greek Yogurt is a highly processed food. It is also near universally agreed that it belongs in the "good for you" column. There are plenty of other examples like this.
See? There's an example right there ^^0 -
I eat, exercise and sleep. My body seems to be quite content to allow me to do that while giving up some fat.0
-
Bump0
-
(so much for being the last I'll say on this)
Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No....it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.
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)
Also, from your statement
(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 seem that gluten causes celiac disease since, for those with celiac disease, consuming gluten produces an effect and eliminating gluten eliminates the effect. Yet gluten does not cause celiac.0 -
(so much for being the last I'll say on this)
Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No....it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.
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)
Also, from your statement
(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 seem that gluten causes celiac disease since, for those with celiac disease, consuming gluten produces an effect and eliminating gluten eliminates the effect. Yet gluten does not cause celiac.
Excellent post everyone, loving it, sometimes more questions than answers but goes to show we are all INDIVIDUALS and nothing is as simple as it first seems
0 -
The actual cause of celiac disease is unknown.(so much for being the last I'll say on this)
Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No....it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.
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)
Also, from your statement
(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 seem that gluten causes celiac disease since, for those with celiac disease, consuming gluten produces an effect and eliminating gluten eliminates the effect. Yet gluten does not cause celiac.0 -
That's like saying a diabetic is no longer diabetic if they eat 20g of carbohydrate a day and never have elevated glucose. The effect/disease remains, you've simply controlled a symptom of it with an intervention, not eliminated the effect. Whether diabetic or someone with celiac's, you're simply controlling a symptom. The disease remains - they are not "cured".it would seem that gluten causes celiac disease since, for those with celiac disease, consuming gluten produces an effect and eliminating gluten eliminates the effect. Yet gluten does not cause celiac.0 -
That's like saying a diabetic is no longer diabetic if they eat 20g of carbohydrate a day and never have elevated glucose. The effect/disease remains, you've simply controlled a symptom of it with an intervention, not eliminated the effect. Whether diabetic or someone with celiac's, you're simply controlling a symptom. The disease remains - they are not "cured".it would seem that gluten causes celiac disease since, for those with celiac disease, consuming gluten produces an effect and eliminating gluten eliminates the effect. Yet gluten does not cause celiac.
Except that diabetes is sometimes cured with weight loss.0 -
No. Controlled is not the same as cured. Weight-loss, diet and exercise can control diabetes. There is no cure. None. Period.Except that diabetes is sometimes cured with weight loss.0 -
No. Controlled is not the same as cured. Weight-loss, diet and exercise can control diabetes. There is no cure. None. Period.Except that diabetes is sometimes cured with weight loss.
Cured, remitted, reversed, again we can argue semantics. But it is more than controlled. Drugs can control it.0 -
(so much for being the last I'll say on this)
Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No....it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.
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)
Yes. Down's Syndrome. Caused by the presence of an extra copy of chromosome 21 (all or in part) during early embryonic development. If it were possible to find and remove the extra copy at an early enough stage, the embryo would never develop the condition.
A contrary example: Mutations to BRCA1 (or smoking, or exposure to asbestos, sun exposure, etc) do not cause cancer. They increase the likelihood that the individual will eventually develop cancer.0 -
(so much for being the last I'll say on this)
Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No....it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.
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)
Also, from your statement
(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 seem that gluten causes celiac disease since, for those with celiac disease, consuming gluten produces an effect and eliminating gluten eliminates the effect. Yet gluten does not cause celiac.
No...the cause of Celiac Disease is *probably* auto-immune related. The *effect* of Celiac Disease is the immune response to the protein wheat gluten, just like any allergy is an exacerbated immune response to a protein. The fact that the allergic response and gluten are in the same place at the same time is a correlation.
Correlation is the presence--or absence--of two phenomenon.
For instance, say I'm wearing a green sweater that looks lovely on me, and my hair is done nicely.
A friend notices my hair and decides to say, 'You look so nice today!'.
My hair was the cause of the compliment. The compliment also occurred on a day that I was wearing a nice green sweater, but the green sweater was not the cause of the compliment.
I could 'test' this by showing up with my nice green sweater and my head shaved. If, all things being equal except my hair, my friend still said I looked so nice, then the compliment could be attributed to my sweater. If I did not another compliment, then it could be said that my sweater correlated with my compliments about 50% of the time, but my hair correlated with my compliments 100% of the time. The other important thing here is the order of events, because an effect can't be causatory of itself.
Anyway, no researcher worth their salt would ever make the mistake of saying one poorly-understood phenomenon *causes* another poorly-understood phenomenon. Do you know why? Once you do that, the research stops.0 -
(so much for being the last I'll say on this)
Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No....it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.
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)
Yes. Down's Syndrome. Caused by the presence of an extra copy of chromosome 21 (all or in part) during early embryonic development. If it were possible to find and remove the extra copy at an early enough stage, the embryo would never develop the condition.
A contrary example: Mutations to BRCA1 (or smoking, or exposure to asbestos, sun exposure, etc) do not cause cancer. They increase the likelihood that the individual will eventually develop cancer.
Can you prove either of those statements?0 -
(so much for being the last I'll say on this)
Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No....it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.
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)
Also, from your statement
(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 seem that gluten causes celiac disease since, for those with celiac disease, consuming gluten produces an effect and eliminating gluten eliminates the effect. Yet gluten does not cause celiac.
No...the cause of Celiac Disease is *probably* auto-immune related. The *effect* of Celiac Disease is the immune response to the protein wheat gluten, just like any allergy is an exacerbated immune response to a protein. The fact that the allergic response and gluten are in the same place at the same time is a correlation.
Correlation is the presence--or absence--of two phenomenon.
For instance, say I'm wearing a green sweater that looks lovely on me, and my hair is done nicely.
A friend notices my hair and decides to say, 'You look so nice today!'.
My hair was the cause of the compliment. The compliment also occurred on a day that I was wearing a nice green sweater, but the green sweater was not the cause of the compliment.
I could 'test' this by showing up with my nice green sweater and my head shaved. If, all things being equal except my hair, my friend still said I looked so nice, then the compliment could be attributed to my sweater. If I did not another compliment, then it could be said that my sweater correlated with my compliments about 50% of the time, but my hair correlated with my compliments 100% of the time. The other important thing here is the order of events, because an effect can't be causatory of itself.
Anyway, no researcher worth their salt would ever make the mistake of saying one poorly-understood phenomenon *causes* another poorly-understood phenomenon. Do you know why? Once you do that, the research stops.
What if your friend was just in an uncomplimentary mood the next time. Or it was the combination of sweater and hair that caused the compliment, thus making them both and neither a cause. So ... we're back to semantics. Got it.0 -
(so much for being the last I'll say on this)
Do you see the word "some" in your statement? Did I use "some" in the definition anywhere? No....it would qualify as a cause, since eliminating obesity has reversed diabetes in some people.
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)
Also, from your statement
(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 seem that gluten causes celiac disease since, for those with celiac disease, consuming gluten produces an effect and eliminating gluten eliminates the effect. Yet gluten does not cause celiac.
No...the cause of Celiac Disease is *probably* auto-immune related. The *effect* of Celiac Disease is the immune response to the protein wheat gluten, just like any allergy is an exacerbated immune response to a protein. The fact that the allergic response and gluten are in the same place at the same time is a correlation.
Correlation is the presence--or absence--of two phenomenon.
For instance, say I'm wearing a green sweater that looks lovely on me, and my hair is done nicely.
A friend notices my hair and decides to say, 'You look so nice today!'.
My hair was the cause of the compliment. The compliment also occurred on a day that I was wearing a nice green sweater, but the green sweater was not the cause of the compliment.
I could 'test' this by showing up with my nice green sweater and my head shaved. If, all things being equal except my hair, my friend still said I looked so nice, then the compliment could be attributed to my sweater. If I did not another compliment, then it could be said that my sweater correlated with my compliments about 50% of the time, but my hair correlated with my compliments 100% of the time. The other important thing here is the order of events, because an effect can't be causatory of itself.
Anyway, no researcher worth their salt would ever make the mistake of saying one poorly-understood phenomenon *causes* another poorly-understood phenomenon. Do you know why? Once you do that, the research stops.
What if your friend was just in an uncomplimentary mood the next time. Or it was the combination of sweater and hair that caused the compliment, thus making them both and neither a cause. So ... we're back to semantics. Got it.
Listen...it's just really obvious that you don't actually understand science and you're calling it semantics because you don't comprehend the importance of clarifying the difference between correlation and causation.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 975 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions