Meaty May
Options
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »@cstehansen Regarding MODY, have you had gad and c-peptide tests? Typically MODY patients would have c-peptide test results resembling that of a type 1, and have gad results showing they do not have anti-bodies of a type 1. If your theory is correct, the c-peptide results would be less extreme than a T1, but would still show a reduced insulin release.
For MODY1 and MODY3, you are correct. However for MODY2, it is more of a set point issue where the body has that set point higher than normal. Insulin production and insulin sensitivity is good. I already knew I was insulin sensitive through several measures and my glucose and fructose metabolism was actually better than average.
MODY1 and MODY3 are very similar but are caused by different genes and are generally misdiagnosed as T1. MODY2 is more commonly misdiagnosed as T2 because C-peptides are not diminished. Part of why I blew this off early on was I didn't know there were different types and I did not fit the MODY1 or MODY3 model which was what I initially read about.
Below is a graph from one of the papers that shows how MODY2 compares to "normal" in terms of A1c by age. This lines up with someone like my dad who was diagnosed pre-diabetic around 1990 as a very fit special ops guy in the army but his A1c has only slightly gone up during that time. The only real "treatment" is diet to avoid the PP highs. He was 70-80% paleo before paleo was a thing so just avoiding all that pre-packaged crap kept him lower carb and certainly lower glycemic.
I am gradually getting carbs up to a higher level and then do my own version of a OGGT at home. If I have this, I should see a relatively normal curve, just a little higher and potentially a little slower downtrend in BG but not as high a typical T2 and returning to my normal pretty close to the same as a non-diabetic.
I am also going to get a two-pack of the home A1c tests and test my daughter and myself at the same time. Since mine has been very consistent for the last couple years now, it is more of an accuracy gauge. If my daughter (who is about to turn 13 and is far from overweight) has a mildly elevated A1c for her age (really anything above 5.2 at this point given her diet and other health markers), then that would be a good indication she has the gene as well. Since it is monogenetic, that means it is dominant and she has a 50-50 chance if I have it. This is actually one of the strategies used by the researchers on one of the studies where they found people with this is they tested all the kids in the family and used them as a proxy test. I wasn't smar enough to come up with that on my own.
I don't want to take her to the doctor to get it checked at this point because if it came back as pre-diabetic, that would be on her permanent health records and could mess her up down the line with health or life insurance. Given this gene has only been recently discovered, and that the medical advice changes so slowly, I don't want to give her that disadvantage.
Based on how these two things go, I will be talking with my doc about both an anti-body test (to rule out LADA) and doing an OGTT along with an insulin assay. The insulin assay results would be almost as good as the gene test in accuracy.1 -
Well, I have never heard of MODY at all ~ so I will have to look it up. I appreciate the discussion. Best wishes on your journey!
0 -
I love braunschweiger and chicken livers. I need lots of onions and butter with beef or pork liver for me to eat it. It's so nutritious, it will correct anemia in no time.TheDevastator wrote: »I'm not full carnivore but I'm buying more meat because of this thread. Grass fed burgers, grass fed hot dogs, and pork sirloin just to name a few. Nice infographics^. What do you all think of braunschweiger?
Love it! Braunschweiger, liver sausage, beef & chicken livers - I love it all. If you can handle it, some of the most nutritious meat you can eat.
0 -
cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »@cstehansen Regarding MODY, have you had gad and c-peptide tests? Typically MODY patients would have c-peptide test results resembling that of a type 1, and have gad results showing they do not have anti-bodies of a type 1. If your theory is correct, the c-peptide results would be less extreme than a T1, but would still show a reduced insulin release.
For MODY1 and MODY3, you are correct. However for MODY2, it is more of a set point issue where the body has that set point higher than normal. Insulin production and insulin sensitivity is good. I already knew I was insulin sensitive through several measures and my glucose and fructose metabolism was actually better than average.
MODY1 and MODY3 are very similar but are caused by different genes and are generally misdiagnosed as T1. MODY2 is more commonly misdiagnosed as T2 because C-peptides are not diminished. Part of why I blew this off early on was I didn't know there were different types and I did not fit the MODY1 or MODY3 model which was what I initially read about.
Below is a graph from one of the papers that shows how MODY2 compares to "normal" in terms of A1c by age. This lines up with someone like my dad who was diagnosed pre-diabetic around 1990 as a very fit special ops guy in the army but his A1c has only slightly gone up during that time. The only real "treatment" is diet to avoid the PP highs. He was 70-80% paleo before paleo was a thing so just avoiding all that pre-packaged crap kept him lower carb and certainly lower glycemic.
I am gradually getting carbs up to a higher level and then do my own version of a OGGT at home. If I have this, I should see a relatively normal curve, just a little higher and potentially a little slower downtrend in BG but not as high a typical T2 and returning to my normal pretty close to the same as a non-diabetic.
I am also going to get a two-pack of the home A1c tests and test my daughter and myself at the same time. Since mine has been very consistent for the last couple years now, it is more of an accuracy gauge. If my daughter (who is about to turn 13 and is far from overweight) has a mildly elevated A1c for her age (really anything above 5.2 at this point given her diet and other health markers), then that would be a good indication she has the gene as well. Since it is monogenetic, that means it is dominant and she has a 50-50 chance if I have it. This is actually one of the strategies used by the researchers on one of the studies where they found people with this is they tested all the kids in the family and used them as a proxy test. I wasn't smar enough to come up with that on my own.
I don't want to take her to the doctor to get it checked at this point because if it came back as pre-diabetic, that would be on her permanent health records and could mess her up down the line with health or life insurance. Given this gene has only been recently discovered, and that the medical advice changes so slowly, I don't want to give her that disadvantage.
Based on how these two things go, I will be talking with my doc about both an anti-body test (to rule out LADA) and doing an OGTT along with an insulin assay. The insulin assay results would be almost as good as the gene test in accuracy.
Wow. You've figured out a lot here! Let us know how it goes, eh?
0 -
cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »@cstehansen Regarding MODY, have you had gad and c-peptide tests? Typically MODY patients would have c-peptide test results resembling that of a type 1, and have gad results showing they do not have anti-bodies of a type 1. If your theory is correct, the c-peptide results would be less extreme than a T1, but would still show a reduced insulin release.
For MODY1 and MODY3, you are correct. However for MODY2, it is more of a set point issue where the body has that set point higher than normal. Insulin production and insulin sensitivity is good. I already knew I was insulin sensitive through several measures and my glucose and fructose metabolism was actually better than average.
MODY1 and MODY3 are very similar but are caused by different genes and are generally misdiagnosed as T1. MODY2 is more commonly misdiagnosed as T2 because C-peptides are not diminished. Part of why I blew this off early on was I didn't know there were different types and I did not fit the MODY1 or MODY3 model which was what I initially read about.
Below is a graph from one of the papers that shows how MODY2 compares to "normal" in terms of A1c by age. This lines up with someone like my dad who was diagnosed pre-diabetic around 1990 as a very fit special ops guy in the army but his A1c has only slightly gone up during that time. The only real "treatment" is diet to avoid the PP highs. He was 70-80% paleo before paleo was a thing so just avoiding all that pre-packaged crap kept him lower carb and certainly lower glycemic.
I am gradually getting carbs up to a higher level and then do my own version of a OGGT at home. If I have this, I should see a relatively normal curve, just a little higher and potentially a little slower downtrend in BG but not as high a typical T2 and returning to my normal pretty close to the same as a non-diabetic.
I am also going to get a two-pack of the home A1c tests and test my daughter and myself at the same time. Since mine has been very consistent for the last couple years now, it is more of an accuracy gauge. If my daughter (who is about to turn 13 and is far from overweight) has a mildly elevated A1c for her age (really anything above 5.2 at this point given her diet and other health markers), then that would be a good indication she has the gene as well. Since it is monogenetic, that means it is dominant and she has a 50-50 chance if I have it. This is actually one of the strategies used by the researchers on one of the studies where they found people with this is they tested all the kids in the family and used them as a proxy test. I wasn't smar enough to come up with that on my own.
I don't want to take her to the doctor to get it checked at this point because if it came back as pre-diabetic, that would be on her permanent health records and could mess her up down the line with health or life insurance. Given this gene has only been recently discovered, and that the medical advice changes so slowly, I don't want to give her that disadvantage.
Based on how these two things go, I will be talking with my doc about both an anti-body test (to rule out LADA) and doing an OGTT along with an insulin assay. The insulin assay results would be almost as good as the gene test in accuracy.
Wow. You've figured out a lot here! Let us know how it goes, eh?
I continue to share (possibly too much at times). I do so because it has been others sharing that has given me the bits that got me on the right path - not just with this, but with other areas in my life. My hope is I can help others. Although not common (somewhere between 1% and 10% of all diabetes), MODY is misdiagnosed as T1 or T2 more than half the time which can not only be frustrating for the person, but the treatment can actually cause more harm than good.1 -
cstehansen wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »@cstehansen Regarding MODY, have you had gad and c-peptide tests? Typically MODY patients would have c-peptide test results resembling that of a type 1, and have gad results showing they do not have anti-bodies of a type 1. If your theory is correct, the c-peptide results would be less extreme than a T1, but would still show a reduced insulin release.
For MODY1 and MODY3, you are correct. However for MODY2, it is more of a set point issue where the body has that set point higher than normal. Insulin production and insulin sensitivity is good. I already knew I was insulin sensitive through several measures and my glucose and fructose metabolism was actually better than average.
MODY1 and MODY3 are very similar but are caused by different genes and are generally misdiagnosed as T1. MODY2 is more commonly misdiagnosed as T2 because C-peptides are not diminished. Part of why I blew this off early on was I didn't know there were different types and I did not fit the MODY1 or MODY3 model which was what I initially read about.
Below is a graph from one of the papers that shows how MODY2 compares to "normal" in terms of A1c by age. This lines up with someone like my dad who was diagnosed pre-diabetic around 1990 as a very fit special ops guy in the army but his A1c has only slightly gone up during that time. The only real "treatment" is diet to avoid the PP highs. He was 70-80% paleo before paleo was a thing so just avoiding all that pre-packaged crap kept him lower carb and certainly lower glycemic.
I am gradually getting carbs up to a higher level and then do my own version of a OGGT at home. If I have this, I should see a relatively normal curve, just a little higher and potentially a little slower downtrend in BG but not as high a typical T2 and returning to my normal pretty close to the same as a non-diabetic.
I am also going to get a two-pack of the home A1c tests and test my daughter and myself at the same time. Since mine has been very consistent for the last couple years now, it is more of an accuracy gauge. If my daughter (who is about to turn 13 and is far from overweight) has a mildly elevated A1c for her age (really anything above 5.2 at this point given her diet and other health markers), then that would be a good indication she has the gene as well. Since it is monogenetic, that means it is dominant and she has a 50-50 chance if I have it. This is actually one of the strategies used by the researchers on one of the studies where they found people with this is they tested all the kids in the family and used them as a proxy test. I wasn't smar enough to come up with that on my own.
I don't want to take her to the doctor to get it checked at this point because if it came back as pre-diabetic, that would be on her permanent health records and could mess her up down the line with health or life insurance. Given this gene has only been recently discovered, and that the medical advice changes so slowly, I don't want to give her that disadvantage.
Based on how these two things go, I will be talking with my doc about both an anti-body test (to rule out LADA) and doing an OGTT along with an insulin assay. The insulin assay results would be almost as good as the gene test in accuracy.
Wow. You've figured out a lot here! Let us know how it goes, eh?
I continue to share (possibly too much at times). I do so because it has been others sharing that has given me the bits that got me on the right path - not just with this, but with other areas in my life. My hope is I can help others. Although not common (somewhere between 1% and 10% of all diabetes), MODY is misdiagnosed as T1 or T2 more than half the time which can not only be frustrating for the person, but the treatment can actually cause more harm than good.
And then there is the Halle Berry case. She was misdiagnosed as type 1 and was a big advocate for type 1. That's great since she is a public figure and can bring a lot of exposure to the disease. She didn't handle things well when she realized she had been misdiagnosed and actually has MODY. Like some other MODY patients, she spontaneously started producing insulin again (which is not possible for true type 1's). Her public comments left the public with the misunderstanding that there was a way that type 1's could get off of insulin. Some of us type 1's, to this day, will hear about how we should be able to make changes and stop taking insulin because "Halle Berry did it."0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »@cstehansen Regarding MODY, have you had gad and c-peptide tests? Typically MODY patients would have c-peptide test results resembling that of a type 1, and have gad results showing they do not have anti-bodies of a type 1. If your theory is correct, the c-peptide results would be less extreme than a T1, but would still show a reduced insulin release.
For MODY1 and MODY3, you are correct. However for MODY2, it is more of a set point issue where the body has that set point higher than normal. Insulin production and insulin sensitivity is good. I already knew I was insulin sensitive through several measures and my glucose and fructose metabolism was actually better than average.
MODY1 and MODY3 are very similar but are caused by different genes and are generally misdiagnosed as T1. MODY2 is more commonly misdiagnosed as T2 because C-peptides are not diminished. Part of why I blew this off early on was I didn't know there were different types and I did not fit the MODY1 or MODY3 model which was what I initially read about.
Below is a graph from one of the papers that shows how MODY2 compares to "normal" in terms of A1c by age. This lines up with someone like my dad who was diagnosed pre-diabetic around 1990 as a very fit special ops guy in the army but his A1c has only slightly gone up during that time. The only real "treatment" is diet to avoid the PP highs. He was 70-80% paleo before paleo was a thing so just avoiding all that pre-packaged crap kept him lower carb and certainly lower glycemic.
I am gradually getting carbs up to a higher level and then do my own version of a OGGT at home. If I have this, I should see a relatively normal curve, just a little higher and potentially a little slower downtrend in BG but not as high a typical T2 and returning to my normal pretty close to the same as a non-diabetic.
I am also going to get a two-pack of the home A1c tests and test my daughter and myself at the same time. Since mine has been very consistent for the last couple years now, it is more of an accuracy gauge. If my daughter (who is about to turn 13 and is far from overweight) has a mildly elevated A1c for her age (really anything above 5.2 at this point given her diet and other health markers), then that would be a good indication she has the gene as well. Since it is monogenetic, that means it is dominant and she has a 50-50 chance if I have it. This is actually one of the strategies used by the researchers on one of the studies where they found people with this is they tested all the kids in the family and used them as a proxy test. I wasn't smar enough to come up with that on my own.
I don't want to take her to the doctor to get it checked at this point because if it came back as pre-diabetic, that would be on her permanent health records and could mess her up down the line with health or life insurance. Given this gene has only been recently discovered, and that the medical advice changes so slowly, I don't want to give her that disadvantage.
Based on how these two things go, I will be talking with my doc about both an anti-body test (to rule out LADA) and doing an OGTT along with an insulin assay. The insulin assay results would be almost as good as the gene test in accuracy.
Wow. You've figured out a lot here! Let us know how it goes, eh?
I continue to share (possibly too much at times). I do so because it has been others sharing that has given me the bits that got me on the right path - not just with this, but with other areas in my life. My hope is I can help others. Although not common (somewhere between 1% and 10% of all diabetes), MODY is misdiagnosed as T1 or T2 more than half the time which can not only be frustrating for the person, but the treatment can actually cause more harm than good.
And then there is the Halle Berry case. She was misdiagnosed as type 1 and was a big advocate for type 1. That's great since she is a public figure and can bring a lot of exposure to the disease. She didn't handle things well when she realized she had been misdiagnosed and actually has MODY. Like some other MODY patients, she spontaneously started producing insulin again (which is not possible for true type 1's). Her public comments left the public with the misunderstanding that there was a way that type 1's could get off of insulin. Some of us type 1's, to this day, will hear about how we should be able to make changes and stop taking insulin because "Halle Berry did it."
Well said. I do my best to put context into my comments. I like to think - at least in terms of health and science - I am a bit smarter than Ms. Berry.1 -
Here is a well written article by Mark Sisson regarding carnivore diet. I am a big believer in eating real food. The vast majority of what I eat has no nutrition label, or if it does it is something like "sardines, extra virgin olive oil, salt." So I do follow a more paleo/primal way of LCHF. I think it is important to look at diet from the standpoint of how we were made to eat. I don't think we were made to eat frankenfoods. Mr. Sisson points out some potential pitfalls as well as some good tips for those who want to eat carnivore.
https://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-carnivore-diet-pros-cons-and-suggestions/?awt_l=GvdkX&awt_m=InCxucbAMhWvYa&utm_source=mda_newsletter&utm_campaign=mda_newsletter_052318&utm_medium=button11 -
cstehansen wrote: »Here is a well written article by Mark Sisson regarding carnivore diet. I am a big believer in eating real food. The vast majority of what I eat has no nutrition label, or if it does it is something like "sardines, extra virgin olive oil, salt." So I do follow a more paleo/primal way of LCHF. I think it is important to look at diet from the standpoint of how we were made to eat. I don't think we were made to eat frankenfoods. Mr. Sisson points out some potential pitfalls as well as some good tips for those who want to eat carnivore.
https://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-carnivore-diet-pros-cons-and-suggestions/?awt_l=GvdkX&awt_m=InCxucbAMhWvYa&utm_source=mda_newsletter&utm_campaign=mda_newsletter_052318&utm_medium=button1
That's actually a serious improvement in his openmindedness over a few years ago, when he was pretty staunchly even against keto, let alone carnivore.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »Here is a well written article by Mark Sisson regarding carnivore diet. I am a big believer in eating real food. The vast majority of what I eat has no nutrition label, or if it does it is something like "sardines, extra virgin olive oil, salt." So I do follow a more paleo/primal way of LCHF. I think it is important to look at diet from the standpoint of how we were made to eat. I don't think we were made to eat frankenfoods. Mr. Sisson points out some potential pitfalls as well as some good tips for those who want to eat carnivore.
https://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-carnivore-diet-pros-cons-and-suggestions/?awt_l=GvdkX&awt_m=InCxucbAMhWvYa&utm_source=mda_newsletter&utm_campaign=mda_newsletter_052318&utm_medium=button1
That's actually a serious improvement in his openmindedness over a few years ago, when he was pretty staunchly even against keto, let alone carnivore.
You know he even wrote a keto book? Yeah. He's all for it now.
0 -
That is a good blog post, but the best thing about it is that it linked me to the story about Jordan Peterson's daughter: http://foodmed.net/2018/05/mikhaila-peterson-poster-girl-carnivore/1
-
I have been doing some thinking about what I may introduce if I decide to re-introduce plant foods.
Aside from ~whatever the hell is in Rally's cheese sauce, burgers, bacon and I don't even wanna know~ (which I had last night and won't be having again) ... I know everything I've had in the past ~5 weeks has not been from plants, with the exception of black coffee. I haven't even used spices.
I've been thinking... like, what is that ONE superfood that I'd want to have back in?
I don't know. Coconut oil is the one I think of most when I ask this question. Not because I specifically miss it, but because I've always thought of it as a super superfood.
A new store opened up in our town, similar to Whole Foods. We walked around the whole place and the only thing that really tempted me (besides all the MEAT) was the olive bar. I did look a little longingly at the olives.1 -
I am not taking part in this, but I have been following it.
I decided today I would not eat any plant products and ate eggs, bacon, cheese and chicken. I had HWC in my first cup of coffee. My carb max is 20 a day, so it is not as if I am eating bowls of cereal most of the time.
I am T2D off all diabetes meds regulating things with a keto diet. My last A1C was 5.9 so an average of 120(ish) average glucose. This corresponds roughly to what I usually see - 110 before supper, 130 an hour after. Today these readings were 101 and 105.
2 -
I've seen my lowest fasting glucose readings *ever* on this WOE. I only check once per week right now, but they have been consistently lower than any previous measurements -- keto or otherwise.
We are each unique, of course. But it has been very interesting to me. Pretty much confirms what I've been feeling about my body + (any) carbs for several years now.0 -
That is a good blog post, but the best thing about it is that it linked me to the story about Jordan Peterson's daughter: http://foodmed.net/2018/05/mikhaila-peterson-poster-girl-carnivore/
Wow. She's been through a lot. Amazing!0 -
My PP BG are very nice when carnivore. I think my last check was 5.3 (around 96).
My FBG are a bit better than when I eat plants, but it's often still my highest reading of the day.1 -
My morning reading was 101 - the lowest I have seen since going off meds.5
-
Not wishing to hijack the thread (mea culpa!), I had stopped checking in the morning. It was always 120(ish) and often the highest reading of the day. This gives me hope that my next A1C may be pretty good.4 -
Hijack away. I love hearing your results! 2
