We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, September 14. 2016
The cheap and easy way to cure overweight and Type 2 diabetes. No need for a doctor to get involved because in most cases people can do it themselves.
Gary Taubes promoted this, but I was on it long before him. The physiology of it is basic and simple.
Please do not tell me that you can lose fat by exercise alone. It doesn't happen. Exercise is great, but not for fat loss although many people find that strenuous exercise reduces appetite.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Many inaccuracies in the article referenced:
“the government projects that one in three Americans (and one in two of those of Hispanic origin) will be given a diagnosis of diabetes by 2050”.
This projection is based on totally inaccurate statistics. What happened is this; Some years back health care professionals recognized that half of diabetics were undiagnosed and if they were diagnosed earlier that it would improve their health outcomes. So they began a program to test apparently healthy people for diabetes and they diagnosed about a million more diabetics a year with this new program. Understand the total number of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetics remained the same but with greater effort to find diabetes early they succeeded. It was a great program and will extend lives and reduce side effects because of earlier treatment. Now if you simply took those stats without regard or as though you were ignorant of how the numbers increased you would indeed see “increased diabetes”. AND if you went a step further and projected that trend why of course at some point 50% would have diabetes (just as at some point 100% would and after another 30 years or so 150% of the population would be diabetic). But the predictions were based on false data and those scientists making that prediction KNOW THAT. So why would they do it. It’s a lie and they know it so why do it? Well probably for the money, increased pay, more health care jobs and more money for research. Where have we seen that before>
Another inaccuracy in the article is the implication that you “catch” diabetes from your food just as you catch a cold from someone who has a cold. You do not. Diabetes is genetic you get it from your parents not your food. That is the reason, as the article pointed out “one in three Americans (and one in two of those of Hispanic origin” will get diabetes. Because people of Hispanic origin are twice as genetically predisposed to get diabetes. If you do not have diabetes eating sugar by the handful will not give it to you.
Another inaccuracy in the article was the implication that you can cure diabetes. You cannot, it is genetic just like your eye color is and you cannot cure your eye color either. What you can do is manage the symptoms. Most of the things that you can do to manage the symptoms will reap huge health benefits to a diabetic so management is good. If a low carb diet reduces your symptoms and/or reduces your need for medication or other treatment then it is a good thing. However it does not necessarily follow that following a diabetic diet will do anything useful for you if you are not diabetic? Anymore than following a diet for someone who is allergic to peanuts or shell fish will help you in any way if you are not allergic to peanuts or shellfish. If you have diabetes and you are successfully managing it through diet and exercise good for you but you STILL have diabetes.
I am totally in favor of the low carb diet. I happen to like meat, especially bacon so bring it on. Also since I happen to love sweets, candy, sugar and junk food in general if I can get most people to stop eating it there will be more for me.
My Mother had diabetes,my Mothers whole side of the family had diabetes.
At the age of 50 (at 385 lbs.) I got diabetes too BUT...
4 years later I had a gastric bypass procedure and now at 205lbs, my diabetes is completely gone 5 years now. (maybe more)
I seem to remember reading someplace that the increase in diagnosed type II diabetes accompanied the redefinition of diabetes from blood sugar levels of 140 and above to blood sugar levels of 120 and above. Again, not sure, but any confirmation/refutation would be appreciated.
Healthy blood sugar (measured before meals) is less than 100. Quibbling over some other threshold is mental masturbation.
I've lost 39 pounds in 3 months on low carbohydrates.
Blood sugar in range except for one week
Can't speak for diabetes, blood sugar etc. Never a problem yet - dietitian wifey last 61 years. I have though lost around 400 lbs over my adult life, 30-50 pounds at a time, so I do have some real world experience. Every 8-10 years I will have put on enough weight to bother me, and I launch into weight loss mode. In fact, at 85, I'm in the middle of a weight loss period right now, 12 lbs over the last four weeks, 10-15 pounds to go. Secret: Cut whatever you breakfast on in half. Cut dinner/supper real food in half, skip wine, desserts and such. If you're eating out, just eat half the real food and walk away. The dumpster divers will appreciate it. Skip lunch, drinking 8-12 oz of milk or buttermilk (my preference) and a piece of fresh fruit or small bunch of grapes. Cut out all between meals things, even the no-cal stuff, but eat a small cookie before going to bed to help you sleep if you're an old timer. You get rid of about 10 lbs a month this way. Bonus: It will hone your self discipline (if you have any). If you can't discipline yourself, you probably need professional help.
So what are your credentials that support your full of shit comment? The comments seemed pretty well supported by known facts what is it you disagree with?
I'll try to be slightly more polite than a couple other commenters .. Please, just stop posting these rants as they only reveal your fundamental misunderstanding of the science.
Doctors have long understood the development of insulin resistance. It's why they categorize diabetes into two types, Type I being the body producing too little insulin to be effective and Type II being the condition where an otherwise adequate amount is produced but can not be used. That Type I was often called juvenile-onset and Type II adult-onset ought be a clue about the size of an 8 foot 2x4 that nobody is born with insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is developed the same way resistance to various diseases is developed, by repeated exposure to a triggering agent. In the case of insulin resistance that triggering agent is a high intake of refined carbohydrates and sugars. Just like not everyone who smokes will develop cancer or drinks adult beverages becomes an alcoholic, not everyone exposed to this diet develops sufficient insulin resistance to be labeled diabetic (and, without exception, people are notoriously unreliable at understanding their actual food intake).
The big flip that Taubes and others have made is to recognize that weight gain follows insulin resistance rather causes it. Once this inversion is recognized then a number of paradoxes - obese manual labors (for an example of why exercise doesn't guarantee weight loss), why malnourished people can be obese at the same time, and how weight control can seem to forestall the onset of Type II diabetes - are resolved. If your 'magic genes' theory of Type II diabetes was correct then people should develop it regardless of their weight.
Windy does that. Of course, Bliss does too, and I know if it were me I'd think twice before publicly recommending health-related pop wisdom where the outcome could be terminal.
But Taubes, the rightist icon, so the wives tales continue.
And of course there's a third way, one cultural rightists around here and places like Instapundit have a hardened immunity to, for reasons they don't explain.
Most people come down in either the conventional mixed diet or keto camps - your typical overweight, unhealthy westerner and your Taubes zealot.
Meanwhile vegans have had it all beat, and generally by multiple double digits. That's the third way, one that doesn't have to impair the system with the nonsensical Adkins myth and one that keeps the body provided for infinitely better than the protein-and-good-fat mythology. In veganism diabetes vanishes along with pretty much all other major health issues, at least as a statistic.
Above Windy goes off on the usual tear, vaguely conflating weight and diabetes and then characteristically tagging them strictly onto genetics, which is nonsense. If you let the body recover on a plant diet, for example, you solve all these ills. But that ain't Republican or something - not enough burnt dead pig to be all hale and hearty like Grandma who lived to 110 on Beam and Camels.
So basically the cultural rightist bacon diet - the whole Taubes tripe - ultimately refers either to starving yourself to be lean, or just being an anecdotal outlier, like Grandma.
We have our myths and we'll darn well have our preferences.
By the way, the way to tie Windy's argument up in knots, as has been done, is to get into diet and genetics. In other words, can diet affect genes, which obviously it can, in ways and over periods we don't know.
Hell, stress will break DNA, but Windy expects his own "magic food" projection to hold argumentative center stage, as if anyone credible or pertinent ever claimed there were magic berries that cured hemorrhoids. (Notwithstanding that in other quarters you'd swear TriplePhatBurgerz make you horny, ripped, and American.)
No, you don't "catch" diabetes from your food and no amount of projecting is going to conjure up legions of hippies and liberals claiming you do. You get diabetes from an impaired, broken system and that you get from a lifestyle composed of the usual mixed Western junk food diet over time. Or as the case may be, across families, cultures, nations, and even races. Even the Eskimo system had to adapt to survive on the unbalanced crap that wrecks their health - that's not genetics per se nor is it whale blubber validation, it's odds and time, and yes if you tried it it'd probably kill you.
So no, there are no magic lettuce pills and there are no means to catch diabetes from a box of pizza rolls. But unless you're lucky - or in Windy's case, really exceptional - you do get it from a lifetime of pizza rolls and donuts. Shocker.
Adult onset diabetes is aptly named. It becomes obvious typically between the ages of 18 and 35. Which is just about the time we stop running around and begin to eat more and exercise less. If you suddenly discover you are diabetic at age 20 or so what is really happening is you are suddenly experiencing symptoms. You always had it but as a growing active thin child you never really knew it. Now as a more aware and more sedentary adult you do notice the symptoms and you go to a doctor. If you had been tested for it at age 18 or 16 or 14 etc. they would have found it then too. One of the complicating factors is diabetes is not the same for everyone. Some can manage it easily with diet and exercise and some need insulin. Some will have serious side effects and others almost no side effects. It is typical that someone with manageable diabetes who carefully manages it with diet and exercise concludes incorrectly that they "cured" it. Not so, it is genetic, you have it. If you don't have it you cannot get it by eating carbs or gaining weight.
"Racist sexist microaggressions" are aptly named too, Windy. Just depends on who you talk to. And what you want to believe.
Once again, you're so FOS that my head could explode.
Stop believing everything that you read on the internet or hear from your cousin Gomer. You have no effing idea what you're talking about nor do you have the background education or training to recognize or understand the nuances of Bliss' comments.
Type 2 diabetes usually doesn't appear (if it does at all) until AFTER the age of 40 and its etiology and binary existence or absence isn't as simplistic as you describe. There's so much more on this topic, but your voluminous, know-it-all post discourages civil dialogue.
My comments are directed to the article that was referenced. My points are accurate as the article fell prey to the common myths of diabetes. I notice you were unable to refute any of the statements I made. Interesting that you think I “discourage civil dialogue” even though my comments were civil but you choose to say “you're so FOS”, “…hear from your cousin Gomer”, ” You have no effing idea what you're talking about”. Perhaps you define civil differently than most people do.
“There's so much more on this topic” There is but I only discussed the obvious mistakes in the article and left most of the “so much more” untouched. It is a popular meme that diabetes is dramatically increasing but it isn’t true. The rates are the same as they were 10, 20, 50 years ago. We identify more of the marginal cases today and there is much more press coverage of the disease but the rates by ethnicity is still the same.
Last year at this time my fasting glucose levels indicated diabetes at 130. I'm down 92 lbs. now, and my fasting glucose level a couple of weeks ago was 94, well under the 100-mark of "normal." My experience is not unusual; I have communicated with many people who achieved the same results. Of course you can cure Type II diabetes with weight loss.
Cholesterol is down 82 points, too. I've never taken medication for cholesterol.
mike, when cornered Windy insists his opponents provide negative proofs. When they do not, he claims victory. If they do cite voluminous medical, scientific proof his theory is goofy, he won't read it but will say you never provided it. I've seen this happen a good half dozen times.
Then generally follows another declaration he's deeply curious or highly read or some other proof-by-assertion and the cycle repeats. Note that he won't touch the link between diet - that is, culture - and genetics. That's toxic because it refutes the preferred nonsense, which is that pseudoscience promotes "magic food", or the ubiquitous Windyism that "you can't catch diabetes [or illness] from your food".
It's a nice tidy package of fallacy and fail no matter which way you slice it.
But to GWTW's point, now that I look at it more carefully, I believe it's true that a genetic predisposition to insulin resistance from overweight is a real thing, and that although my symptoms have disappeared, it's still true that I'm a diabetic in the sense that if I gained the weight back I'd get back the disordered blood glucose, probably immediately. Nevertheless, weight loss is a path to complete restoration of health for many people who develop Type II diabetes, and it's a shame that more people don't seem to know this. Whether it has to do with overweight from a particular cause, like excess carbs, I couldn't say, but I will say that my diet over the last year has been in the 50%-carb range, and I still lost weight and fixed my blood glucose. My impression is that the problem was the sheer volume of food (including carbs) I was eating, not the proportion of fat to protein to carbs. These days I don't eat "low" anything, except calories. That is, I practice portion control instead of ingredient restriction.
Go over to Amazon, look up Taubes book, and read the long one-star reviews. PhDs, researchers, you name it.
Carbs are not evil. The Eville Carbs myth is a rightist fantasy disproved every hour of every day by people who actually know nutrition.
I already have read Taubes's book and have never believed that carbs are evil. You may have meant to reply to someone else?
I personally find it easier to stay full if I take most of my carb calories in the form of vegetables rather than grains, for what that's worth. So I don't eat as much breakfast cereal, bread, or rice as I once did, but I don't absolutely shun grains either. I don't shun anything. I just eat less of all of it every day.
Once again, what are your credentials? You quoted most of my last reply, but "conveniently" left out my statements questioning your lack of education and training in this area that would enable you to understand the nuances of articles you are looking at (I can't say reading because that might imply some level of comprehension).
As to the incidence of Type 2 diabetes (only uneducated rubes call it adult onset), it is increasing. As to its age of onset, you repeatedly insist that it's most common between ages 18-35 and that is flat out false.
You're like a boy who has come to a gun fight wielding a knife - totally unprepared and totally out of your league.
No offense, Tex. I just dropped that in the thread to challenge the carb myth.
Some rail-thin vegans eat a dozen bananas, a pound of beans, and a pail of veg a day. Carbs aren't the thing. The Standard Diet is, and it's a killer. It's why people have to go keto on the Atkins thing to lose weight and then pronounce themselves healthy.
It appears to me that your issue is not the errors I pointed to in the article but something else. Many zealots on this issue are all about the diet and become incensed with anyone who doesn't agree. Since you never refuted anything I said I suspect your agenda is the diet. So can you admit that or at least give some insight into what your real agenda is? I suspect not, I suspect you prefer to to muddy the waters rather than discuss specifics.
Well, also, I later realized you were referring me to the many critical comments at Amazon, not the book itself. I hadn't read those. Sorry if I was snippy. On the phone with certifiably insane people from AT&T and my HMO today. Enough to drive anyone around the bend. And the Post Office has lost every bill payment we mailed in August from a particular mailbox, on three separate days. That's taking some doing to clean up. Everyone who speaks to me today gets a cannon shot back!
^ Don't say I didn't warn you, mike. Windy is MF's resident Alinsky on the subject.