Lifestyle changes reduce Type 2 Diabete risk
07-18-14, 11:24 AM
#26
Guest
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't follow the it's all their fault theory, as I had lost 102 pounds and was on the high school track doing 10-15 miles a day when I was diagnosed. Diabetes is caused by a problem with the pancreas that leads to poor quality or not enough insulin production, PERIOD.
It is not strictly an obesity created disease nor are all obese people automatically going to get it.
As a Type II diabetic diagnosed in about 1996 I am a bit taken aback by the lack of proper knowledge and just plain nonsensical stuff getting tossed around in this thread.
Now, it is true that losing the weight and other lifestyle changes can actually end the diabetic condition but it's not true for everyone. If this is just going to degenerate into a rant about how fat people are getting without more physical facts and less onerous opining then what is the point?
It is not strictly an obesity created disease nor are all obese people automatically going to get it.
As a Type II diabetic diagnosed in about 1996 I am a bit taken aback by the lack of proper knowledge and just plain nonsensical stuff getting tossed around in this thread.
Now, it is true that losing the weight and other lifestyle changes can actually end the diabetic condition but it's not true for everyone. If this is just going to degenerate into a rant about how fat people are getting without more physical facts and less onerous opining then what is the point?
T1's have an absolute deficit of insulin....the beta cells in the pancreas are being destroyed, usually by an autoimmune attack.
T2's have a relative deficit of insulin. In fact, most T2's produce more than average insulin, but due to insulin resistance the body doesn't use it properly. T2 is generally thought to be a product of being overweight and or sedentary....but there is a genetic component, as it seems to occur within bloodlines. Often those with T2 will have first or second level relatives with the same condition.
Of course, those are generalizations. Some T2's produce very little insulin as their beta cells have committed suicide.
07-20-14, 06:04 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,712
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
When discussing diseases like diabetes it is imprtant, no essential, to be as careful and precise as possible, both in reading and in writing. There is an emotional content that can cloud the issues otherwise.
There are a number of problems that in most cases start out as behaviour issues. But after sufficient damage has been done to the body the condition is permanent. That doesn't mean the source isn't behaviour. It means that the negative behaviour has created irreversible results.
I, for one, would never say that every single Type2 diabetic was a product of initial bad behaviour. As I said in my original post my experience is that most fit in that category.
To be fair, over time our society has created an environment that enables that behaviour. We are starting to do concrete things to change. But there is a long way to go.
There are a number of problems that in most cases start out as behaviour issues. But after sufficient damage has been done to the body the condition is permanent. That doesn't mean the source isn't behaviour. It means that the negative behaviour has created irreversible results.
I, for one, would never say that every single Type2 diabetic was a product of initial bad behaviour. As I said in my original post my experience is that most fit in that category.
To be fair, over time our society has created an environment that enables that behaviour. We are starting to do concrete things to change. But there is a long way to go.
07-21-14, 04:15 AM
#28
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,061
Bikes: 2012 Trek DS 8.5 all weather hybrid, 2008 LeMond Poprad cyclocross, 1992 Cannondale R500 roadbike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
When discussing diseases like diabetes it is imprtant, no essential, to be as careful and precise as possible, both in reading and in writing. There is an emotional content that can cloud the issues otherwise.
There are a number of problems that in most cases start out as behaviour issues. But after sufficient damage has been done to the body the condition is permanent. That doesn't mean the source isn't behaviour. It means that the negative behaviour has created irreversible results.
I, for one, would never say that every single Type2 diabetic was a product of initial bad behaviour. As I said in my original post my experience is that most fit in that category.
To be fair, over time our society has created an environment that [Promotes and Encourages] that behaviour. We are starting to do concrete things to change. But there is a long way to go.
There are a number of problems that in most cases start out as behaviour issues. But after sufficient damage has been done to the body the condition is permanent. That doesn't mean the source isn't behaviour. It means that the negative behaviour has created irreversible results.
I, for one, would never say that every single Type2 diabetic was a product of initial bad behaviour. As I said in my original post my experience is that most fit in that category.
To be fair, over time our society has created an environment that [Promotes and Encourages] that behaviour. We are starting to do concrete things to change. But there is a long way to go.
... Otherwise, well said. Very well said...
07-23-14, 07:53 AM
#30
Senior Member
Take some measurements. My youngin (an exercise physiologist) tells me that muscle is more dense than fat. you can lose fat, add muscle and not change your weight much, which is what happened to me.
And new muscle cells don't inherit insulin resistance.
Outstanding work!!!!! Hoooorah!!!!!
And new muscle cells don't inherit insulin resistance.
Outstanding work!!!!! Hoooorah!!!!!
There are two main types of diabetes....they both share the symptom of high blood sugars, but for different reasons.
T1's have an absolute deficit of insulin....the beta cells in the pancreas are being destroyed, usually by an autoimmune attack.
T2's have a relative deficit of insulin. In fact, most T2's produce more than average insulin, but due to insulin resistance the body doesn't use it properly. T2 is generally thought to be a product of being overweight and or sedentary....but there is a genetic component, as it seems to occur within bloodlines. Often those with T2 will have first or second level relatives with the same condition.
Of course, those are generalizations. Some T2's produce very little insulin as their beta cells have committed suicide.
T1's have an absolute deficit of insulin....the beta cells in the pancreas are being destroyed, usually by an autoimmune attack.
T2's have a relative deficit of insulin. In fact, most T2's produce more than average insulin, but due to insulin resistance the body doesn't use it properly. T2 is generally thought to be a product of being overweight and or sedentary....but there is a genetic component, as it seems to occur within bloodlines. Often those with T2 will have first or second level relatives with the same condition.
Of course, those are generalizations. Some T2's produce very little insulin as their beta cells have committed suicide.
When discussing diseases like diabetes it is imprtant, no essential, to be as careful and precise as possible, both in reading and in writing. There is an emotional content that can cloud the issues otherwise.
There are a number of problems that in most cases start out as behaviour issues. But after sufficient damage has been done to the body the condition is permanent. That doesn't mean the source isn't behaviour. It means that the negative behaviour has created irreversible results.
I, for one, would never say that every single Type2 diabetic was a product of initial bad behaviour. As I said in my original post my experience is that most fit in that category.
To be fair, over time our society has created an environment that enables that behaviour. We are starting to do concrete things to change. But there is a long way to go.
There are a number of problems that in most cases start out as behaviour issues. But after sufficient damage has been done to the body the condition is permanent. That doesn't mean the source isn't behaviour. It means that the negative behaviour has created irreversible results.
I, for one, would never say that every single Type2 diabetic was a product of initial bad behaviour. As I said in my original post my experience is that most fit in that category.
To be fair, over time our society has created an environment that enables that behaviour. We are starting to do concrete things to change. But there is a long way to go.
It is not a "relative" deficit in any way shape or form. It is with exposure to higher levels cells become insensitive to insulin.
Behavior and emotional issues, for decades we were taught to nearly maximize our exposure to insulin spiking foods. The low fat fad (or fad-tality) is case in point. Most foods replaced fat with maltodextrin. GI 130! So out of the warm blanket and into the blast furnace... SO by doing what was thought/ we were told to be "right" we ended up with a catastrophic disorder rampant through the population. Worse the general diet is self perpetuating. It increases fat cell count (increasing hunger sensation) while putting insulin through the roof which triggers positive feed back... It's not morality, or emotions, it is bio chemistry plain and far from simple.
You can reverse Insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. It is not easy but doable for most people. Gain a lot of muscle while maintaining low Insulin Response diet... GI is a very flawed metric as it measure outside of body, not bodies response to foods. Time frame will be long and discipline is devastatingly hard. Tissue cells replace themselves certain rates, new cells start out with clean slate. Mucous membranes replace themselves rapidly, Muscle cells fast, nerves slowly, bone glacial pace.
Doc says to consider myself no longer insulin resistant. Fasting insulin is low (not optimium) and fasting blood sugar is well > 100... But it took years and I'm carrying like 40lbs of "extra" muscle, which it has it's own long term health implications and not all good.
I still am carb phobic as my body responded horribly to insulin resistance. Which I am sure many of you can relate too... All my physical activity is still influenced by my past status. I ride long distance slowly (50-100 miles) and lift weights (rather heavy). Fueling is an issue as most carb sources can be an issue if I'm not depleted... Insulin does not spike nearly as much if you're glycogen (muscle and liver) are low, or are digesting it at or lower then rate your muscles burn it. One good fuel I've found is bean soup sandwiches. Beans have nearly flat Insulin Response curve...
Everything I've stated is backed up by studies. I tried to read source material where available. Unfortunately, studies are usually (IMHO) low N and unrepresentative, but that's all that's out there.
I didn't keep references as well, my studies were driven to reverse a personal health crisis. Also a lot of the studies I only had access in written forms and would have had to keep and organize a library...
07-23-14, 10:53 AM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,712
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Congratulations on taking charge of your own health. In the end that is the only sure action that brings good outcomes.
I think you misunderstand my comment about emotions. I am referring to the defensiveness and responsibility shifting attempts that are often inserted into these type discussions.
I think you misunderstand my comment about emotions. I am referring to the defensiveness and responsibility shifting attempts that are often inserted into these type discussions.
07-23-14, 11:56 AM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 99
Bikes: Trek 7.3 FX
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I got a scare a few months ago. My doc told me my fasting BS was 180 with A1C of 6.3 and that I was now a pre-diabetic. It turned out the BS was 108, not 180, but it still scared me. As someone who takes care of diabetic complications on a daily basis, I don't want to mess around. Bought a bike and worked my way up to 50+ miles a week. Dropped only a few pounds, but feel much better.
Repeated labs the other day and they were normal.
Repeated labs the other day and they were normal.
07-23-14, 12:30 PM
#33
Senior Member
a few years ago (2006 time frame) on the annual physical performed at work (I was an Army civilian) by an Army doc I was told "you're diabetic, you need to see a doctor". My A1C was at 5 so I ignored the doc even when I was told that year after year with the same A1C as I don't trust Army doctors. Well here in August of 2012 I went to the VA for my Annual physical and was told "you're diabetic" with an A1C of 7.3 so I figured okay I will follow the advice which was basically here take these pills (500 mg of Metformine twice a day) and go away.
Believing that diabetes was a sugar disease (i.e. don't eat sugar) I cut out soda pop, alcohol, and other refined sugars. I also knew I needed to drink more fluids so I started drinking juice by the gallon.... ended up with a diabetic checkup in December of 2012 with an A1C of 12.4 as me trying to do the "right thing" ended with me making everything worse.... The VA said here's your glucose meter, here's your insulin, raise your metformine to 1000mg twice a day and go away.
I got hold of my civilian doc and had her get me in touch with the Diabetes education at the medical group in our area and learned that I can eat anything I want in moderation as diabetes is about carbohydrates (an intake of too few carbs and the body will create sugars to feed the brain, and an intake of too many carbs and the glucose levels will be high). I was able to get my A1C down to around 6.3 since then, but have had issues in the last month with my glucose levels.
Diabetes stinks to high heaven.
Believing that diabetes was a sugar disease (i.e. don't eat sugar) I cut out soda pop, alcohol, and other refined sugars. I also knew I needed to drink more fluids so I started drinking juice by the gallon.... ended up with a diabetic checkup in December of 2012 with an A1C of 12.4 as me trying to do the "right thing" ended with me making everything worse.... The VA said here's your glucose meter, here's your insulin, raise your metformine to 1000mg twice a day and go away.
I got hold of my civilian doc and had her get me in touch with the Diabetes education at the medical group in our area and learned that I can eat anything I want in moderation as diabetes is about carbohydrates (an intake of too few carbs and the body will create sugars to feed the brain, and an intake of too many carbs and the glucose levels will be high). I was able to get my A1C down to around 6.3 since then, but have had issues in the last month with my glucose levels.
Diabetes stinks to high heaven.
07-28-14, 01:00 PM
#34
Guest
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This is incorrect and correct at the same time... Nearly backwards.
It is not a "relative" deficit in any way shape or form. It is with exposure to higher levels cells become insensitive to insulin.
Behavior and emotional issues, for decades we were taught to nearly maximize our exposure to insulin spiking foods. The low fat fad (or fad-tality) is case in point. Most foods replaced fat with maltodextrin. GI 130! So out of the warm blanket and into the blast furnace... SO by doing what was thought/ we were told to be "right" we ended up with a catastrophic disorder rampant through the population. Worse the general diet is self perpetuating. It increases fat cell count (increasing hunger sensation) while putting insulin through the roof which triggers positive feed back... It's not morality, or emotions, it is bio chemistry plain and far from simple.
You can reverse Insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. It is not easy but doable for most people. Gain a lot of muscle while maintaining low Insulin Response diet... GI is a very flawed metric as it measure outside of body, not bodies response to foods. Time frame will be long and discipline is devastatingly hard. Tissue cells replace themselves certain rates, new cells start out with clean slate. Mucous membranes replace themselves rapidly, Muscle cells fast, nerves slowly, bone glacial pace.
Doc says to consider myself no longer insulin resistant. Fasting insulin is low (not optimium) and fasting blood sugar is well > 100... But it took years and I'm carrying like 40lbs of "extra" muscle, which it has it's own long term health implications and not all good.
I still am carb phobic as my body responded horribly to insulin resistance. Which I am sure many of you can relate too... All my physical activity is still influenced by my past status. I ride long distance slowly (50-100 miles) and lift weights (rather heavy). Fueling is an issue as most carb sources can be an issue if I'm not depleted... Insulin does not spike nearly as much if you're glycogen (muscle and liver) are low, or are digesting it at or lower then rate your muscles burn it. One good fuel I've found is bean soup sandwiches. Beans have nearly flat Insulin Response curve...
Everything I've stated is backed up by studies. I tried to read source material where available. Unfortunately, studies are usually (IMHO) low N and unrepresentative, but that's all that's out there.
I didn't keep references as well, my studies were driven to reverse a personal health crisis. Also a lot of the studies I only had access in written forms and would have had to keep and organize a library...
It is not a "relative" deficit in any way shape or form. It is with exposure to higher levels cells become insensitive to insulin.
Behavior and emotional issues, for decades we were taught to nearly maximize our exposure to insulin spiking foods. The low fat fad (or fad-tality) is case in point. Most foods replaced fat with maltodextrin. GI 130! So out of the warm blanket and into the blast furnace... SO by doing what was thought/ we were told to be "right" we ended up with a catastrophic disorder rampant through the population. Worse the general diet is self perpetuating. It increases fat cell count (increasing hunger sensation) while putting insulin through the roof which triggers positive feed back... It's not morality, or emotions, it is bio chemistry plain and far from simple.
You can reverse Insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. It is not easy but doable for most people. Gain a lot of muscle while maintaining low Insulin Response diet... GI is a very flawed metric as it measure outside of body, not bodies response to foods. Time frame will be long and discipline is devastatingly hard. Tissue cells replace themselves certain rates, new cells start out with clean slate. Mucous membranes replace themselves rapidly, Muscle cells fast, nerves slowly, bone glacial pace.
Doc says to consider myself no longer insulin resistant. Fasting insulin is low (not optimium) and fasting blood sugar is well > 100... But it took years and I'm carrying like 40lbs of "extra" muscle, which it has it's own long term health implications and not all good.
I still am carb phobic as my body responded horribly to insulin resistance. Which I am sure many of you can relate too... All my physical activity is still influenced by my past status. I ride long distance slowly (50-100 miles) and lift weights (rather heavy). Fueling is an issue as most carb sources can be an issue if I'm not depleted... Insulin does not spike nearly as much if you're glycogen (muscle and liver) are low, or are digesting it at or lower then rate your muscles burn it. One good fuel I've found is bean soup sandwiches. Beans have nearly flat Insulin Response curve...
Everything I've stated is backed up by studies. I tried to read source material where available. Unfortunately, studies are usually (IMHO) low N and unrepresentative, but that's all that's out there.
I didn't keep references as well, my studies were driven to reverse a personal health crisis. Also a lot of the studies I only had access in written forms and would have had to keep and organize a library...
And as you stated, Insulin Resistance (IR) can be reduced for most T2's and even some T1's who suffer from it. Exercise can help reduce that IR over the next 24 or so hours. That is why moderate exercise is very important for diabetics.
07-28-14, 01:45 PM
#35
Senior Member
I'm not looking to start anything, but I too am a type 2 diabetic. I have been told I have the lowest insulin output my doc has ever seen for a type 2. .9 while my blood sugar was 161. Type 1 is considered at .7 or lower on that test. I'd have to find the test results report to tell you the exact test name...but it measured insulin, not c-peptide. However, the vast majority of T2's do, as you stated make a lot of insulin. Even with this large amount of insulin, the body suffers a relative defiinsuloin as ciency in insulin. This is why many T2's on insulin take a 100U or more/day. Type 2 Diabetes: An Overview
And as you stated, Insulin Resistance (IR) can be reduced for most T2's and even some T1's who suffer from it. Exercise can help reduce that IR over the next 24 or so hours. That is why moderate exercise is very important for diabetics.
And as you stated, Insulin Resistance (IR) can be reduced for most T2's and even some T1's who suffer from it. Exercise can help reduce that IR over the next 24 or so hours. That is why moderate exercise is very important for diabetics.
Relative (with high production) is the old view, which viewed result, but not cause.
The vast majority of insulin resistant people tissue became resistant due to long term repeated exposures to elevated insulin. There are those who cells do not respond to insulin genetically. But this is very few of us.
It's like saying to get the teeter-totter to work (when one side is held down by a person and a dump truck) is to add a dump truck to the other side as it is only a relative weight imbalance. Which "works", the teeter-tooter balances... But it fails horrifically in the long term...
The analogy is appropriate as that is what balancing high but ineffective levels with more insulin does in the short term balance the equation. In the long term however, the even more elevated levels damages the tissue further requiring more insulin produced and perhaps added. Increasing damage, rinse repeat....
There are those who are already caught on the wrong side of the feedback loop. My research didn't address those over the edge. Given the research on below this, well. Avoidance of any insulin spikes would seem to be even more critical... Given that the damage done by elevated blood sugar is also cumulative, it's like a rock and a hard place. As not only would any high GI food cause disproportionate blood sugar it would also trigger disproportionate insulin response... While I would imaging the carb cravings would be related to how important it would be to not be exposed to elevated levels. I gotta say from what I read here, I must be relatively weak willed compared to some people fighting this.
Reversal was possible in my case, as I could add muscle fairly effectively. It took about 40lbs of muscle and 3-4 years to reverse this. I obviously made many mistakes. All too often my discipline slipped and I binged on simple carbs. Personally, my concern is that the "new" muscle got exposed to elevated levels, especially early on. The damage done by insulin spikes (or elevated levels) is cumulative. It seems to make sense that I could revert to insulin resistant far easier then it took the first time.
Carb cravings are infrequent but still severe when they happen. I crave the worst possible carbs, especially potatoes. I have not found the key to ending cravings. Some fruit or other carbs can blunt it, other times it seems to magnify them. I have figured out the farther carb depleted I am the more likely I am to crave. But also if I have succumbed recently, I get strong cravings.
There is research that says that remaining fat cells (especially visceral fat) send hormonal signals that induce cravings. Unfortunately it is the last to go on me. I would have to drop about another 20-25lbs of body fat, so like 35-37 total lbs to address this. That's this years focus.
07-28-14, 01:48 PM
#36
Guest
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
wow, resistant AND low production or just low production?
Relative (with high production) is the old view, which viewed result, but not cause.
The vast majority of insulin resistant people tissue became resistant due to long term repeated exposures to elevated insulin. There are those who cells do not respond to insulin genetically. But this is very few of us.
It's like saying to get the teeter-totter to work (when one side is held down by a person and a dump truck) is to add a dump truck to the other side as it is only a relative weight imbalance. Which "works", the teeter-tooter balances... But it fails horrifically in the long term...
The analogy is appropriate as that is what balancing high but ineffective levels with more insulin does in the short term balance the equation. In the long term however, the even more elevated levels damages the tissue further requiring more insulin produced and perhaps added. Increasing damage, rinse repeat....
There are those who are already caught on the wrong side of the feedback loop. My research didn't address those over the edge. Given the research on below this, well. Avoidance of any insulin spikes would seem to be even more critical... Given that the damage done by elevated blood sugar is also cumulative, it's like a rock and a hard place. As not only would any high GI food cause disproportionate blood sugar it would also trigger disproportionate insulin response... While I would imaging the carb cravings would be related to how important it would be to not be exposed to elevated levels. I gotta say from what I read here, I must be relatively weak willed compared to some people fighting this.
Reversal was possible in my case, as I could add muscle fairly effectively. It took about 40lbs of muscle and 3-4 years to reverse this. I obviously made many mistakes. All too often my discipline slipped and I binged on simple carbs. Personally, my concern is that the "new" muscle got exposed to elevated levels, especially early on. The damage done by insulin spikes (or elevated levels) is cumulative. It seems to make sense that I could revert to insulin resistant far easier then it took the first time.
Carb cravings are infrequent but still severe when they happen. I crave the worst possible carbs, especially potatoes. I have not found the key to ending cravings. Some fruit or other carbs can blunt it, other times it seems to magnify them. I have figured out the farther carb depleted I am the more likely I am to crave. But also if I have succumbed recently, I get strong cravings.
There is research that says that remaining fat cells (especially visceral fat) send hormonal signals that induce cravings. Unfortunately it is the last to go on me. I would have to drop about another 20-25lbs of body fat, so like 35-37 total lbs to address this. That's this years focus.
Relative (with high production) is the old view, which viewed result, but not cause.
The vast majority of insulin resistant people tissue became resistant due to long term repeated exposures to elevated insulin. There are those who cells do not respond to insulin genetically. But this is very few of us.
It's like saying to get the teeter-totter to work (when one side is held down by a person and a dump truck) is to add a dump truck to the other side as it is only a relative weight imbalance. Which "works", the teeter-tooter balances... But it fails horrifically in the long term...
The analogy is appropriate as that is what balancing high but ineffective levels with more insulin does in the short term balance the equation. In the long term however, the even more elevated levels damages the tissue further requiring more insulin produced and perhaps added. Increasing damage, rinse repeat....
There are those who are already caught on the wrong side of the feedback loop. My research didn't address those over the edge. Given the research on below this, well. Avoidance of any insulin spikes would seem to be even more critical... Given that the damage done by elevated blood sugar is also cumulative, it's like a rock and a hard place. As not only would any high GI food cause disproportionate blood sugar it would also trigger disproportionate insulin response... While I would imaging the carb cravings would be related to how important it would be to not be exposed to elevated levels. I gotta say from what I read here, I must be relatively weak willed compared to some people fighting this.
Reversal was possible in my case, as I could add muscle fairly effectively. It took about 40lbs of muscle and 3-4 years to reverse this. I obviously made many mistakes. All too often my discipline slipped and I binged on simple carbs. Personally, my concern is that the "new" muscle got exposed to elevated levels, especially early on. The damage done by insulin spikes (or elevated levels) is cumulative. It seems to make sense that I could revert to insulin resistant far easier then it took the first time.
Carb cravings are infrequent but still severe when they happen. I crave the worst possible carbs, especially potatoes. I have not found the key to ending cravings. Some fruit or other carbs can blunt it, other times it seems to magnify them. I have figured out the farther carb depleted I am the more likely I am to crave. But also if I have succumbed recently, I get strong cravings.
There is research that says that remaining fat cells (especially visceral fat) send hormonal signals that induce cravings. Unfortunately it is the last to go on me. I would have to drop about another 20-25lbs of body fat, so like 35-37 total lbs to address this. That's this years focus.
FWIW, I too think insulin spikes are bad. By the time most have become diabetic, they have already lost the first wave insulin secretion from their beta cells. This means their pancreas has to produce an extra large 2nd wave in order to shunt the post prandial excursion. That is not a good thing, and leads to more weight gain as the insulin triggers fat storage.
As for my own situation...I have some resistance, but it's not a lot. I take metformin 2,000 mg BID and 20 units/day of Levimir.
07-28-14, 05:44 PM
#37
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,061
Bikes: 2012 Trek DS 8.5 all weather hybrid, 2008 LeMond Poprad cyclocross, 1992 Cannondale R500 roadbike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
"Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain."
07-28-14, 07:10 PM
#38
Senior Member
Insulin in not a drug like an opioid that your body develops a tolerance to. It sounds good, but its not medically accurate. Insulin resistance is primarily caused by excess body fat and genetics (plus some other things like a history of gestational diabetes). And, according to the American diabetes Assoc, the only two ways to reduce your chances of getting Type 2 diabetes are increasing exercise and losing weight.
"Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain."
"Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain."
The American Diabetes Association is around 10 years behind medical research. Odd, as they fund a lot of it. Too bad the implications of research are emotionally unacceptable to so many.
After decades of moralizing people interpret this as "their fault", precisely opposite of what it really means. Cravings are induced and amplify over time.
Incorrect, it is exactly like that.
Tissue becomes less sensitive to insulin with exposures to elevated levels (particularly insulin spikes). This has been repeatedly shown both within the body and in culture (growth media). Replicated many times in many different labs. You can debate implications and work out what it means for you, but it is a fact.
What you're missing is the hope this allows. New tissue does not start out as insulin resistant. All tissue has a baseline replacement rate, mucus membranes the quickest, nerve and bone the slowest. Skeletal muscle growth can be induced to a large degree. New muscle will blunt the whipsaw cycles people are on. If you can manage your levels of both blood sugar and insulin for long enough, more and more tissue is less sensitive. There are chemicals that can resensitize tissue but so far are not safe for other reasons. Lifestyle changes are the best known ways to safely restore insulin sensitivity. Some supplements have been shown (in some individuals) to help re sensitize, but so far it's not a large effect. The largest effects are where insensitivity was partially induced by a severe deficit.
One thing this implies is that "fault", "blame", and "guilt" are not really productive concepts. It is a physical phenomenon that must be dealt with. But the nature of the phenomenon means it is awfully hard to address this w/o significant assistance. They are working on several drugs that will help a lot, it's just that messing with a fundamental life process is not easy to design an intervention that's safe and effective for all people.
07-29-14, 05:03 AM
#39
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,061
Bikes: 2012 Trek DS 8.5 all weather hybrid, 2008 LeMond Poprad cyclocross, 1992 Cannondale R500 roadbike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Sorry,
The American Diabetes Association is around 10 years behind medical research. Odd, as they fund a lot of it. Too bad the implications of research are emotionally unacceptable to so many.
After decades of moralizing people interpret this as "their fault", precisely opposite of what it really means. Cravings are induced and amplify over time.
Incorrect, it is exactly like that.
Tissue becomes less sensitive to insulin with exposures to elevated levels (particularly insulin spikes). This has been repeatedly shown both within the body and in culture (growth media). Replicated many times in many different labs. You can debate implications and work out what it means for you, but it is a fact.
What you're missing is the hope this allows. New tissue does not start out as insulin resistant. All tissue has a baseline replacement rate, mucus membranes the quickest, nerve and bone the slowest. Skeletal muscle growth can be induced to a large degree. New muscle will blunt the whipsaw cycles people are on. If you can manage your levels of both blood sugar and insulin for long enough, more and more tissue is less sensitive. There are chemicals that can resensitize tissue but so far are not safe for other reasons. Lifestyle changes are the best known ways to safely restore insulin sensitivity. Some supplements have been shown (in some individuals) to help re sensitize, but so far it's not a large effect. The largest effects are where insensitivity was partially induced by a severe deficit.
One thing this implies is that "fault", "blame", and "guilt" are not really productive concepts. It is a physical phenomenon that must be dealt with. But the nature of the phenomenon means it is awfully hard to address this w/o significant assistance. They are working on several drugs that will help a lot, it's just that messing with a fundamental life process is not easy to design an intervention that's safe and effective for all people.
The American Diabetes Association is around 10 years behind medical research. Odd, as they fund a lot of it. Too bad the implications of research are emotionally unacceptable to so many.
After decades of moralizing people interpret this as "their fault", precisely opposite of what it really means. Cravings are induced and amplify over time.
Incorrect, it is exactly like that.
Tissue becomes less sensitive to insulin with exposures to elevated levels (particularly insulin spikes). This has been repeatedly shown both within the body and in culture (growth media). Replicated many times in many different labs. You can debate implications and work out what it means for you, but it is a fact.
What you're missing is the hope this allows. New tissue does not start out as insulin resistant. All tissue has a baseline replacement rate, mucus membranes the quickest, nerve and bone the slowest. Skeletal muscle growth can be induced to a large degree. New muscle will blunt the whipsaw cycles people are on. If you can manage your levels of both blood sugar and insulin for long enough, more and more tissue is less sensitive. There are chemicals that can resensitize tissue but so far are not safe for other reasons. Lifestyle changes are the best known ways to safely restore insulin sensitivity. Some supplements have been shown (in some individuals) to help re sensitize, but so far it's not a large effect. The largest effects are where insensitivity was partially induced by a severe deficit.
One thing this implies is that "fault", "blame", and "guilt" are not really productive concepts. It is a physical phenomenon that must be dealt with. But the nature of the phenomenon means it is awfully hard to address this w/o significant assistance. They are working on several drugs that will help a lot, it's just that messing with a fundamental life process is not easy to design an intervention that's safe and effective for all people.
07-29-14, 07:58 AM
#40
Senior Member
The bulk of the medical and scientific communities disagree with your pop science. It makes for good reading, but it does not stand up to scrutiny. Yes, there are some isolated lab rat type experiments that purport to prove your point. But the bulk of the evidence argues against it.
World Wide medical community, and Scientific community, very doubtful research is improving our knowledge in this area rapidly.
I read both the reports of the studies and in many cases the studies themselves. Sorry, PubMed, Sci A, Science Daily, Endocrine Today, and yes, Muscular Development... with direct citations hardly pop sci... There's a lot of work coming out of both Universities and the EU.
Yes, there's always troubles with sample size and population selection... MY personal situation is complicated. I have several variations that make it hard to compare results from more normative samples. One issue is near Addison's levels of cortisol is "normal" for people like me. There is almost no research on such a small population. Another is my injury history precludes many forms of exercise such as running, all too many lifts. Applying current state of knowledge personally is a challenge.
Seemingly the worst are studies on physical activity, most are on small n, untrained or normal population type people who are not capable of significant workloads. The studies duration's are way too short for progress in exercise, let alone physical acclimation to activity.
So yeah, was Insulin resistant, now not. Have not been for a couple years. Can I maintain or improve that status as I age? The best thing is that many of the worst cravings now seem repulsive yet oddly attractive. Doritos were a HUGE weakness and account for much of my past carb lapses. Now the idea of them has an attraction, but the experience of them is... well hard to describe, but aversive...
But go ahead choose to believe what you have always believed, that's the comfortable route.
07-29-14, 08:32 AM
#41
Guest
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Bulk of American medical community? maybe... AMA and FDA are hard to get to change. Look how long the food pyramid, took to change... Or labeling requirements. Here's one tip, look into how maltodextrin appears in the carb/sugar totals and how it is used in "fat free" foods. Then rely on FDA labeling requirements...??? Or Sugar alcohols are labeled vs. how they are metabolized? Or exercise recommendation are watered down NOT by the science, but by physicians expectations of what people can/will implement.
World Wide medical community, and Scientific community, very doubtful research is improving our knowledge in this area rapidly.
I read both the reports of the studies and in many cases the studies themselves. Sorry, PubMed, Sci A, Science Daily, Endocrine Today, and yes, Muscular Development... with direct citations hardly pop sci... There's a lot of work coming out of both Universities and the EU.
Yes, there's always troubles with sample size and population selection... MY personal situation is complicated. I have several variations that make it hard to compare results from more normative samples. One issue is near Addison's levels of cortisol is "normal" for people like me. There is almost no research on such a small population. Another is my injury history precludes many forms of exercise such as running, all too many lifts. Applying current state of knowledge personally is a challenge.
Seemingly the worst are studies on physical activity, most are on small n, untrained or normal population type people who are not capable of significant workloads. The studies duration's are way too short for progress in exercise, let alone physical acclimation to activity.
So yeah, was Insulin resistant, now not. Have not been for a couple years. Can I maintain or improve that status as I age? The best thing is that many of the worst cravings now seem repulsive yet oddly attractive. Doritos were a HUGE weakness and account for much of my past carb lapses. Now the idea of them has an attraction, but the experience of them is... well hard to describe, but aversive...
But go ahead choose to believe what you have always believed, that's the comfortable route.
World Wide medical community, and Scientific community, very doubtful research is improving our knowledge in this area rapidly.
I read both the reports of the studies and in many cases the studies themselves. Sorry, PubMed, Sci A, Science Daily, Endocrine Today, and yes, Muscular Development... with direct citations hardly pop sci... There's a lot of work coming out of both Universities and the EU.
Yes, there's always troubles with sample size and population selection... MY personal situation is complicated. I have several variations that make it hard to compare results from more normative samples. One issue is near Addison's levels of cortisol is "normal" for people like me. There is almost no research on such a small population. Another is my injury history precludes many forms of exercise such as running, all too many lifts. Applying current state of knowledge personally is a challenge.
Seemingly the worst are studies on physical activity, most are on small n, untrained or normal population type people who are not capable of significant workloads. The studies duration's are way too short for progress in exercise, let alone physical acclimation to activity.
So yeah, was Insulin resistant, now not. Have not been for a couple years. Can I maintain or improve that status as I age? The best thing is that many of the worst cravings now seem repulsive yet oddly attractive. Doritos were a HUGE weakness and account for much of my past carb lapses. Now the idea of them has an attraction, but the experience of them is... well hard to describe, but aversive...
But go ahead choose to believe what you have always believed, that's the comfortable route.
07-29-14, 08:51 AM
#42
Senior Member
oops USDA published the food guides.
The one published when I grew up was a great way to maximize profit and a great way to induce diabetes in the population.
But it is an accurate representation of what the bulk of the medical and scientific community was propagating...
For the FDA, try the recent rulings on continuing to allow lipophillic endocrine disruptors in food packaging...
Same chemicals other countries don't allow in circuit boards as they are too toxic.
The one published when I grew up was a great way to maximize profit and a great way to induce diabetes in the population.
But it is an accurate representation of what the bulk of the medical and scientific community was propagating...
For the FDA, try the recent rulings on continuing to allow lipophillic endocrine disruptors in food packaging...
Same chemicals other countries don't allow in circuit boards as they are too toxic.
07-29-14, 10:16 AM
#43
Guest
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
oops USDA published the food guides.
The one published when I grew up was a great way to maximize profit and a great way to induce diabetes in the population.
But it is an accurate representation of what the bulk of the medical and scientific community was propagating...
For the FDA, try the recent rulings on continuing to allow lipophillic endocrine disruptors in food packaging...
Same chemicals other countries don't allow in circuit boards as they are too toxic.
The one published when I grew up was a great way to maximize profit and a great way to induce diabetes in the population.
But it is an accurate representation of what the bulk of the medical and scientific community was propagating...
For the FDA, try the recent rulings on continuing to allow lipophillic endocrine disruptors in food packaging...
Same chemicals other countries don't allow in circuit boards as they are too toxic.
I have personally chosen to try to go as natural as possible in everything I consume. The less processing and packaging, the better.
07-29-14, 01:56 PM
#44
Newbie
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 51
Bikes: Scott CR1 Pro
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I disassociated from the American Diabtetes Association after I questioned why they recommended chemical sugar substitutes such as sucralose and aspartame. They replied with a canned answer of "we endorse the FDA approved sugar substitutes". What the ADA doesn't address is the link between sugar substitutes and high triglycerides which leads to metabolic syndrome, a condition many T2 diabetics are diagnosed with. They also don't address the increasing link of sugar substitutes to increased hunger cravings.
Last edited by Sailor73; 07-29-14 at 02:00 PM.
07-29-14, 03:07 PM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 8,941
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12196 Post(s)
Liked 1,497 Times
in
1,109 Posts
I came up with this after cancer. It's easy, most anyone can do it, and it works
way better than you'd think.
When you wake up, walk around the house for 1/2 hour to an hour.
I get up, put the kettle on, make a 12 oz cup of green tea (if you get cancer, try this
and taking a EGCG pill at the same time) and keep walking. It's not a death march,
I start easy, and after a minute stroll. After a half hour, you should feel better.
You can also take this to the next level. I got the idea from Bonk training, where you get
up, fill a water bottle, and go for a good ride. No coffee, no nuttin'.
way better than you'd think.
When you wake up, walk around the house for 1/2 hour to an hour.
I get up, put the kettle on, make a 12 oz cup of green tea (if you get cancer, try this
and taking a EGCG pill at the same time) and keep walking. It's not a death march,
I start easy, and after a minute stroll. After a half hour, you should feel better.
You can also take this to the next level. I got the idea from Bonk training, where you get
up, fill a water bottle, and go for a good ride. No coffee, no nuttin'.
07-30-14, 07:22 AM
#46
Guest
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I came up with this after cancer. It's easy, most anyone can do it, and it works
way better than you'd think.
When you wake up, walk around the house for 1/2 hour to an hour.
I get up, put the kettle on, make a 12 oz cup of green tea (if you get cancer, try this
and taking a EGCG pill at the same time) and keep walking. It's not a death march,
I start easy, and after a minute stroll. After a half hour, you should feel better.
You can also take this to the next level. I got the idea from Bonk training, where you get
up, fill a water bottle, and go for a good ride. No coffee, no nuttin'.
way better than you'd think.
When you wake up, walk around the house for 1/2 hour to an hour.
I get up, put the kettle on, make a 12 oz cup of green tea (if you get cancer, try this
and taking a EGCG pill at the same time) and keep walking. It's not a death march,
I start easy, and after a minute stroll. After a half hour, you should feel better.
You can also take this to the next level. I got the idea from Bonk training, where you get
up, fill a water bottle, and go for a good ride. No coffee, no nuttin'.
07-31-14, 03:56 AM
#47
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,061
Bikes: 2012 Trek DS 8.5 all weather hybrid, 2008 LeMond Poprad cyclocross, 1992 Cannondale R500 roadbike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Now, more from the UK on the "TAPE MEASURE TEST" everyone should take before Type 2 Diabetes overwhelms their health care system.
https://www.bikeforums.net/newreply.p...reply&t=954372
[h=1]'Tape measure test' call on type 2 diabetes[/h]By James Gallagher Health editor, BBC News website
People are being urged to whip out
the tape measure to assess their risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
Public Health England said there was a "very high risk" of diabetes with
waistlines over 40in (102cm) in men or 35in (88cm) in women.
It warned that the disease could "cripple" the NHS, 10% of whose budget was
already spent on it.
The charity Diabetes UK said the country was facing a "devastating" type 2
diabetes epidemic.
Type 2 diabetes is an inability to control blood sugar levels that has dire
consequences for health.
It increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes, is the leading cause of
blindness in people of working age, damages blood vessels and nerves and results
in 100 foot amputations each week in the UK.
If someone has type 2 diabetes at the age of 50, they can expect to die six
years earlier than someone without the disease.
How
fat?
Obesity is the biggest risk factor driving the disease.
Public Health England (PHE) says men with a 40in (102cm) waist are five times
more likely to get type 2 diabetes than those with a slimmer waistline.
Women were at three times greater risk once they reached 35in (88cm).
The PHE report also warns men with a 37-40in waistline (94-102cm) or women at
31-35in (80-88cm) may not be in the most dangerous group, but still faced a
"higher risk" of the disease.
Dr Alison Tedstone, the chief nutritionist at Public Health England, said
obesity was now so prevalent "we don't even recognise it".
She urged people to "keep an eye on your waist measurement" as losing weight
was "the biggest thing you can do" to combat the disease.
Earlier this month, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence said
people with type 2 diabetes should have weight loss surgery.
Chocolate or fruit? Type 2 diabetes is mostly caused
by lifestyle choices.
However, many people mistakenly think their trouser size counts as their
waistline, conveniently forgetting about a bothersome beer belly.
Dr Tedstone told the BBC: "People get it wrong, particularly men.
"They measure their waist under their bellies, saying they haven't got fatter
because their trouser size is the same, forgetting they're wearing their
trousers lower and lower.
"So the tip is to measure across the belly button."
'Unsustainable'
A different form of diabetes - type 1 - is caused by the body's own immune
system rebelling and destroying the cells needed to control blood sugar.
About 3.2 million people have been diagnosed with some form of diabetes in
the UK and that figure is projected to reach five million by 2025.
The NHS already spends a 10th of its budget on the diseases.
"That's a huge amount of money and that could possibly double over the next
few years, and that could cripple the NHS," said Dr Tedstone.
Baroness Barbara Young, the chief executive of Diabetes UK, said: "With many
millions of people in the UK now at high risk of type 2 diabetes, this is an
epidemic that looks likely to get even worse, and if this happens then the
impact on the nation's health would be devastating and the increase in costs to
the NHS would be unsustainable."
She said the government needed to intervene.
"It needs to urgently consider making healthy food more accessible through
taxation, other financial measures and more robust regulation of the food
industry," she said.
Prof Jonathan Valabhji, the national clinical director for obesity and
diabetes for NHS England, said: "We are seeing huge increases in type 2 diabetes
because of the rising rates of obesity, and we clearly need a concerted effort
on the prevention, early diagnosis and management of diabetes to slow its
significant impact not only on individual lives but also on the NHS."
https://www.bikeforums.net/newreply.p...reply&t=954372
[h=1]'Tape measure test' call on type 2 diabetes[/h]By James Gallagher Health editor, BBC News website
People are being urged to whip out
the tape measure to assess their risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
Public Health England said there was a "very high risk" of diabetes with
waistlines over 40in (102cm) in men or 35in (88cm) in women.
It warned that the disease could "cripple" the NHS, 10% of whose budget was
already spent on it.
The charity Diabetes UK said the country was facing a "devastating" type 2
diabetes epidemic.
Type 2 diabetes is an inability to control blood sugar levels that has dire
consequences for health.
It increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes, is the leading cause of
blindness in people of working age, damages blood vessels and nerves and results
in 100 foot amputations each week in the UK.
If someone has type 2 diabetes at the age of 50, they can expect to die six
years earlier than someone without the disease.
How
fat?
Obesity is the biggest risk factor driving the disease.
Public Health England (PHE) says men with a 40in (102cm) waist are five times
more likely to get type 2 diabetes than those with a slimmer waistline.
Women were at three times greater risk once they reached 35in (88cm).
The PHE report also warns men with a 37-40in waistline (94-102cm) or women at
31-35in (80-88cm) may not be in the most dangerous group, but still faced a
"higher risk" of the disease.
Dr Alison Tedstone, the chief nutritionist at Public Health England, said
obesity was now so prevalent "we don't even recognise it".
She urged people to "keep an eye on your waist measurement" as losing weight
was "the biggest thing you can do" to combat the disease.
Earlier this month, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence said
people with type 2 diabetes should have weight loss surgery.
Chocolate or fruit? Type 2 diabetes is mostly caused
by lifestyle choices.
However, many people mistakenly think their trouser size counts as their
waistline, conveniently forgetting about a bothersome beer belly.
Dr Tedstone told the BBC: "People get it wrong, particularly men.
"They measure their waist under their bellies, saying they haven't got fatter
because their trouser size is the same, forgetting they're wearing their
trousers lower and lower.
"So the tip is to measure across the belly button."
'Unsustainable'
A different form of diabetes - type 1 - is caused by the body's own immune
system rebelling and destroying the cells needed to control blood sugar.
About 3.2 million people have been diagnosed with some form of diabetes in
the UK and that figure is projected to reach five million by 2025.
The NHS already spends a 10th of its budget on the diseases.
"That's a huge amount of money and that could possibly double over the next
few years, and that could cripple the NHS," said Dr Tedstone.
Baroness Barbara Young, the chief executive of Diabetes UK, said: "With many
millions of people in the UK now at high risk of type 2 diabetes, this is an
epidemic that looks likely to get even worse, and if this happens then the
impact on the nation's health would be devastating and the increase in costs to
the NHS would be unsustainable."
She said the government needed to intervene.
"It needs to urgently consider making healthy food more accessible through
taxation, other financial measures and more robust regulation of the food
industry," she said.
Prof Jonathan Valabhji, the national clinical director for obesity and
diabetes for NHS England, said: "We are seeing huge increases in type 2 diabetes
because of the rising rates of obesity, and we clearly need a concerted effort
on the prevention, early diagnosis and management of diabetes to slow its
significant impact not only on individual lives but also on the NHS."
