If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes
http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/ind...id=1&Itemid=17 * There were no associations between prediabetes or diabetes incidence with general markers of obesity, such as body mass index (BMI) or total body fat * Having excess visceral fat and insulin resistance, but not being obese in and of itself, puts heavier patients at risk for prediabetes and diabetes, researchers found. Visceral fat = "wheat belly" -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes
On Sep 22, 2:52*pm, Dogman wrote:
http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/ind...ontent&view=ar.... * There were no associations between prediabetes or diabetes incidence with general markers of obesity, such as body mass index (BMI) or total body fat * Having excess visceral fat and insulin resistance, but not being obese in and of itself, puts heavier patients at risk for prediabetes and diabetes, researchers found. Visceral fat = "wheat belly" -- I would love to see the studies that show that visceral fat is specific to wheat, as opposed to other causes, including refined carbs from sources other than wheat. As for insulin resistance being correlated with pre-diabetes and diabetes, wow, this is news? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 08:12:15 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Sep 22, 2:52*pm, Dogman wrote: http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/ind...ontent&view=ar... * There were no associations between prediabetes or diabetes incidence with general markers of obesity, such as body mass index (BMI) or total body fat * Having excess visceral fat and insulin resistance, but not being obese in and of itself, puts heavier patients at risk for prediabetes and diabetes, researchers found. Visceral fat = "wheat belly" I would love to see the studies that show that visceral fat is specific to wheat, as opposed to other causes, including refined carbs from sources other than wheat. Read the book. Or keep eating all those pancakes, etc. I couldn't care less. As for insulin resistance being correlated with pre-diabetes and diabetes, wow, this is news? It's a reminder for interested parties. Take your complaints to And whatever you do, don't test your BG levels until after your doctor tells you that you already have diabetes. And never, ever check your cholesterol, and what effect wheat has on LDL particle size and number. That way, you'll eventually (if you survive that long) get to take even more drugs, and we know how you love your drugs, EH? Moron. Nota bene: How you ever ended up on a low-carb newsgroup is still a mystery to me. Wouldn't you feel more at home over at alt.support.diet.rx or alt.drugs? -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes
On Sep 23, 12:56*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 08:12:15 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Sep 22, 2:52 pm, Dogman wrote: http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/ind...ontent&view=ar... * There were no associations between prediabetes or diabetes incidence with general markers of obesity, such as body mass index (BMI) or total body fat * Having excess visceral fat and insulin resistance, but not being obese in and of itself, puts heavier patients at risk for prediabetes and diabetes, researchers found. Visceral fat = "wheat belly" I would love to see the studies that show that visceral fat is specific to wheat, as opposed to other causes, including refined carbs from sources other than wheat. Read the book. As usual, you have no studies. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:07:03 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] Visceral fat = "wheat belly" I would love to see the studies that show that visceral fat is specific to wheat, as opposed to other causes, including refined carbs from sources other than wheat. Read the book. As usual, you have no studies. As usual, you expect others to do the work for you. Note: Visceral fat isn't *specific* to wheat (those are your words, not mine), but wheat causes visceral fat (the worst kind). Two slices of bread will raise your blood sugars more than a Snickers candy bar, a can of Coke, etc. Why anyone who purports to be on a low-carb diet would ever eat a Snickers candy bar, drink a can of Coke, or eat two slices of bread, escapes me. You claim that you eat/ate low-carb "just to lose a few pounds" (hopefully, you've lost them by now and can go someplace else?) but most people eat low-carb to lose more than just a few pounds, to avoid or cure diabetes, to avoid or cure metabolic syndrome, to get off of medicines, to improve their overall health markers, etc, so my posts aren't aimed at you. They're aimed at them. You're just an ignorant, ankle-biting asshole -- and a TROLL. So... ......................./´¯/) .....................,/¯../ ..................../..../ ............../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ .........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ .........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') ..........\.................'...../ ...........''...\.......... _.·´ .............\..............( ...............\.............\... -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes
On Sep 24, 3:52*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:07:03 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] Visceral fat = "wheat belly" I would love to see the studies that show that visceral fat is specific to wheat, as opposed to other causes, including refined carbs from sources other than wheat. Read the book. As usual, you have no studies. As usual, you expect others to do the work for you. Note: Visceral fat isn't *specific* to wheat (those are your words, not mine), Must have been someone else sitting at your keyboard that typed this: "Visceral fat = "wheat belly" And when I questioned if there was a study that showed visceral fat was specific to wheat as opposed to say refined carbs in general, must have been someone else sitting at your keyboard that replied that I should read the Wheat Belly book. but wheat causes visceral fat (the worst kind). Two slices of bread will raise your blood sugars more than a Snickers candy bar, a can of Coke, etc. Let's look at the facts: http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm I'm not a fan on Dr Mendosa, but he has a good list of the glycemic load of various foods. On it we find: Wonder Bread 30g GL 10 Snickers 60g GL 15 to 23 Coke 250ml GL 16 Those are per the serving size listed and they seem reasonable to me. So, it's hard for me to get my shorts up in a knot that wheat is somehow uniquely bad and worse than drinking coke or eating a snickers bar. Even if you double the bread serving, it's still in the GL range of the snickers bar. And IMO, it's a lot easier to swill down several cokes than it is to eat six slices of bread. Why anyone who purports to be on a low-carb diet would ever eat a Snickers candy bar, drink a can of Coke, or eat two slices of bread, escapes me. Maybe because once in a while they feel like it and they aren't an extremist. I'm not saying everyone should do it, but if it works for some, it doesn't bother me. You claim that you eat/ate low-carb "just to lose a few pounds" I never said any such thing. (hopefully, you've lost them by now and can go someplace else?) I've been here a lot longer than you. but most people eat low-carb to lose more than just a few pounds, to avoid or cure diabetes, to avoid or cure metabolic syndrome, to get off of medicines, to improve their overall health markers, etc, so my posts aren't aimed at you. They're aimed at them. You're just an ignorant, ankle-biting asshole -- and a TROLL. And you're the poster who claims: HIV isn't the cause of AIDS HIV is harmless Diet and lack of sleep cause AIDS No virus can cause cancer HPV isn't a cause of cervical cancer. Folks can evaluate the quality of your scientific knowledge and then decide who's the ignorant one. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes
On Sep 25, 2:12*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:00:57 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] Visceral fat = "wheat belly" I would love to see the studies that show that visceral fat is specific to wheat, as opposed to other causes, including refined carbs from sources other than wheat. Read the book. As usual, you have no studies. As usual, you expect others to do the work for you. Note: Visceral fat isn't *specific* to wheat (those are your words, not mine), Must have been someone else sitting at your keyboard that typed this: "Visceral fat = "wheat belly" Exactly! But being equal to something is not the same thing as being specific to something! Man = homo sapien and Woman = homo sapien Equal to in my world means they are the same thing. And in your above example, while both a man and a woman are homosapiens, a man or woman is not equivalent to the term homosapian. An apple is a fruit. A peach is a fruit. That doesn't mean an apple is a peach. With visceral fat = wheat belly, you've effectively said that an apple is a peach. . of bread will raise your blood sugars more than a Snickers candy bar, a can of Coke, etc. Let's look at the facts: http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm I'm not a fan on Dr Mendosa, Nor am I, so why refer to him? I only used a convenient table he has that shows the glycemic load of various foods. You can find similar tables of glycemic load from various sources that show bread doesn't have any significantly worse impact than coke or a snickers bar. As usual, you completely edited that whole part out. Let me put it back in for you: Wonder Bread 30g GL 10 Snickers 60g GL 15 to 23 Coke 250ml GL 16 http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2011/...nhealthy-Whole... "People are usually shocked when I tell them that whole wheat bread increases blood sugar to a higher level than sucrose.1 Aside from some extra fiber, eating two slices of whole wheat bread is really little different, and often worse, than drinking a can of sugar-sweetened soda or eating a sugary candy bar. "This information is not new. A 1981 University of Toronto study launched the concept of the glycemic index, i.e., the comparative blood sugar effects of carbohydrates: the higher the blood sugar after consuming a specific food compared to glucose, the higher the glycemic index (GI). The original study showed that the GI of white bread was 69, while the GI of whole grain bread was 72 and Shredded Wheat cereal was 67, while that of sucrose (table sugar) was 59.2 Yes, the GI of whole grain bread is higher than that of sucrose. Incidentally, the GI of a Mars Bar nougat, chocolate, sugar, caramel, and all�is 68. That�s better than whole grain bread. The GI of a Snickers bar is 41�far better than whole grain bread. And accoriing to other sources, the GI of that snickers bar is 43 to 68. I find the 41 number to be highly suspect. And the 68 is probably closer to the truth. But the 41 is a good hook to rope in the dopes by those writing sensationalist books. Good message. Bread is bad, but snickers bars and cokes are better. The simple truth is that almost all refined carbs have a significant impact on BG levels, be that wheat, snickers, coke, rice, etc. I think to be focusing on one versus the others is more about selling books. But if you have some studies that shows wheat is unique on it's impact on BG, I'd be happy to see them. "This has important implications for body weight, since glucose is unavoidably accompanied by insulin, the hormone that allows entry of glucose into the cells of the body, converting the glucose to fat. The higher the blood glucose after consumption of food, the greater the insulin level, the more fat is deposited. This is why, say, eating a three-egg omelet that triggers no increase in glucose does not add to body fat, while two slices of whole wheat bread increases blood glucose to high levels, triggering insulin and growth of fat, particularly abdominal or deep visceral fat." Moreover, these numbers are rough estimates. The only way to determine what these foods actually do to YOUR OWN blood sugar levels is to TEST them! *But since you have no interest in finding out what these foods are doing to YOU, it seems a bit strange that you would even enter this conversation. *Besides being an ankle-biting TROLL, that is. You do all the testing on yourself that you want. I don't recall a single non-diabetic here in the group doing BG testing. And somehow we've all been living fine without you and your required methods. Why anyone who purports to be on a low-carb diet would ever eat a Snickers candy bar, drink a can of Coke, or eat two slices of bread, escapes me. Maybe because once in a while they feel like it and they aren't an extremist. But maybe they should be more extreme and less...wishy-washy? Why, just because you say so? Who put you in charge? If LC is working for folks and once in a while they want to eat a snickers bar or have a desert made with sugar because they are dining out at a fancy restaurant, I say fine. I'm not saying everyone should do it, but if it works for some, it doesn't bother me. You have no idea whether it's bothering you or not, because you don't believe in testing. Yes, I know. We're all supposed to be conducting constant BG monitoring. That's a good message to get more people to do LC. Make it 10X harder than it has to be just because you say so. Are you as sure about the need for that as you are that HIV is harmless? That AIDS is caused by diet? I never said any such thing. Yes you did. You said you only wanted to "lose a few pounds." You can look it up. You're the one making the claim. I say you're a liar. Now, go ahead, make my day. Show everyone where I said it. Of course, just like your studies, that won't be forthcoming, because it doesn't exist. You're just an ignorant, ankle-biting asshole -- and a TROLL. And you're the poster who claims: AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs Absolutely! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:24:43 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] Note: Visceral fat isn't *specific* to wheat (those are your words, not mine), Must have been someone else sitting at your keyboard that typed this: "Visceral fat = "wheat belly" Exactly! But being equal to something is not the same thing as being specific to something! Man = homo sapien and Woman = homo sapien Equal to in my world means they are the same thing. In your bizarro world, anything goes, eh? diabetes = illness cancer = illness Diabetes is not the same thing as cancer! And in your above example, while both a man and a woman are homosapiens, a man or woman is not equivalent to the term homosapian. Again, those are your words (and yet another straw man!). I didn't say they were equivalent {just like I didn't say visceral fat was specific to wheat belly). visceral fat = wheat belly This should not suggest that other things can't also be "=" to wheat belly! An apple is a fruit. A peach is a fruit. Exactly! And it's irrelevant. That doesn't mean an apple is a peach. With visceral fat = wheat belly, you've effectively said that an apple is a peach. No I haven't. I said that visceral fat = wheat belly. In the same way that diabetes = illness and cancer = illness. Think about it, it'll sink in eventually. of bread will raise your blood sugars more than a Snickers candy bar, a can of Coke, etc. Let's look at the facts: http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm I'm not a fan on Dr Mendosa, Nor am I, so why refer to him? I only used a convenient table he has that shows the glycemic load of various foods. So what? I used GI. Pick your poison. http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2011/...nhealthy-Whole... "People are usually shocked when I tell them that whole wheat bread increases blood sugar to a higher level than sucrose.1 Aside from some extra fiber, eating two slices of whole wheat bread is really little different, and often worse, than drinking a can of sugar-sweetened soda or eating a sugary candy bar. "This information is not new. A 1981 University of Toronto study launched the concept of the glycemic index, i.e., the comparative blood sugar effects of carbohydrates: the higher the blood sugar after consuming a specific food compared to glucose, the higher the glycemic index (GI). The original study showed that the GI of white bread was 69, while the GI of whole grain bread was 72 and Shredded Wheat cereal was 67, while that of sucrose (table sugar) was 59.2 Yes, the GI of whole grain bread is higher than that of sucrose. Incidentally, the GI of a Mars Bar nougat, chocolate, sugar, caramel, and all�is 68. That�s better than whole grain bread. The GI of a Snickers bar is 41�far better than whole grain bread. And accoriing to other sources, the GI of that snickers bar is 43 to 68. I find the 41 number to be highly suspect. Yes, but you find anything "suspect" that doesn't comport with your preconceived notions! Good message. Bread is bad, but snickers bars and cokes are better. If that's what you think the message is, you're beyond stupid, you're somewhere between moron and imbecile. The simple truth is that almost all refined carbs have a significant impact on BG levels, be that wheat, snickers, coke, rice, etc. Exactly! They're virtually the same. But they affect different people differently. And you have no way to determine how it might be affecting YOU unless you TEST. I think to be focusing on one versus the others is more about selling books. No, it's about informing people of the DANGERS associated with wheat! The vast majority of people think wheat is actually good for them! That it's healthy, etc. Well, it's NOT! And the poor dumb schmucks like yourself, who listen to the ADA push wheat on people who already have diabetes(!) and say nothing about it are part of the ****ing problem! Asshole. "This has important implications for body weight, since glucose is unavoidably accompanied by insulin, the hormone that allows entry of glucose into the cells of the body, converting the glucose to fat. The higher the blood glucose after consumption of food, the greater the insulin level, the more fat is deposited. This is why, say, eating a three-egg omelet that triggers no increase in glucose does not add to body fat, while two slices of whole wheat bread increases blood glucose to high levels, triggering insulin and growth of fat, particularly abdominal or deep visceral fat." Moreover, these numbers are rough estimates. The only way to determine what these foods actually do to YOUR OWN blood sugar levels is to TEST them! *But since you have no interest in finding out what these foods are doing to YOU, it seems a bit strange that you would even enter this conversation. *Besides being an ankle-biting TROLL, that is. You do all the testing on yourself that you want. I do! I don't recall a single non-diabetic here in the group doing BG testing. And that's a problem! And that's precisely why many diabetics don't know even that they're diabetic! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-diabetes.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124269507804132831.html http://www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/304...lications.html They've essentially unscrewed their engine warning light. How smart is that? And somehow we've all been living fine without you and your required methods. Everyone lives fine, until they get sick, or keel over and die. Why anyone who purports to be on a low-carb diet would ever eat a Snickers candy bar, drink a can of Coke, or eat two slices of bread, escapes me. Maybe because once in a while they feel like it and they aren't an extremist. But maybe they should be more extreme and less...wishy-washy? Why, just because you say so? No, because many wise scientists and doctors say so. Common sense says so. See: preventive medicine Who put you in charge? I'm not in charge of anything. But you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot say here, you little prick! Got that? I make posts here that I think might help others with various diet-related problems. Yes, you're welcome to critique them, that's what newsgroups are all about. But you're not in charge here, and for as long as you want to incessantly follow me around and gnaw on my ankles (rather than have an honest discussion), I'm going to keep kicking you in the teeth. If LC is working for folks and once in a while they want to eat a snickers bar or have a desert made with sugar because they are dining out at a fancy restaurant, I say fine. I say fine, too. But they should at least know what that may be doing to their health markers when they do it. If they don't care, they don't care. And if they don't care, I don't care. C'est la vie. Nota bene: But this is exactly the kind of attitude that accounts for so many diet failures. Not to mention obesity, diabetes, poor general health and pre-mature death. "Once in a while" can quickly become "once a week" which can quickly become "everyday." See: any 12-step addiction program. I'm not saying everyone should do it, but if it works for some, it doesn't bother me. You have no idea whether it's bothering you or not, because you don't believe in testing. Yes, I know. We're all supposed to be conducting constant BG monitoring. Yet another straw man! Really, if you didn't have straw men to argue with, you'd be one lonely SOB, wouldn't you? I recommended *periodic* testing. Period. It's cheap, and pretty accurate. Once you know the numbers for your standard diet, there's no reason to keep testing just for the hell of it. But if you change something in your diet (like adding wheat), you'd be wise to want to know how that particular change affects you (everything you eat affects you). Got it now, you freakin' idiot? That's a good message to get more people to do LC. If losing weight (and keeping it off), improving key health markers, avoiding or curing diabetes, etc., aren't attractive enough messages, they're doomed to failure anyway. Are you as sure about the need for that as you are that HIV is harmless? That AIDS is caused by diet? HIV is mostly harmless. Yes. AIDS can be caused by diet (malnutrition), because without proper nutrition, the immune system will gradually weaken, and even collapse. Yes. Even someone as dumb as you are probably knows what happens when your immune system collapses, eh? In Africa, it's known as "wasting." Go ahead and **** with your immune system and very bad things will happen to you. I never said any such thing. Yes you did. You said you only wanted to "lose a few pounds." You can look it up. You're the one making the claim. I say you're a liar. I'm not doing your work for you. You know you said it, and I know you said it. You're just an ignorant, ankle-biting asshole -- and a TROLL. And you're the poster who claims: AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs Absolutely! http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/POISON.PDF And one more message, just for you: ......................./´¯/) .....................,/¯../ ..................../..../ ............../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ .........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ .........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') ..........\.................'...../ ...........''...\.......... _.·´ .............\..............( ...............\.............\... -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes
On Sep 25, 7:11*pm, Dogman wrote:
I only used a convenient table he has that shows the glycemic load of various foods. So what? I used GI. Pick your poison. I believe GL is more accepted today as a meaure of the real BG impact. And again you chose to edit out the real issue which is that bread is not all that much different that a snickers or a coke, despite your attempts to make it so: Wonder Bread 30g GL 10 Snickers 60g GL 15 to 23 Coke 250ml GL 16 Take two slices of bread if you like and it's still in the range of that Snickers or Coke, not significantly worse. Yes, but you find anything "suspect" that doesn't comport with your preconceived notions! You're the AIDS denialist that spins everything in a desperate attempt to deny what everyone knows, which is that HIV is the cause of AIDS. And I'm supposed to be the one with preconceived notions? Good message. Bread is bad, but snickers bars and cokes are better. If that's what you think the message is, you're beyond stupid, you're somewhere between moron and imbecile. I think the "Wheat Belly" message is just to sell books to make a profit. The fact that you can't provide a link to studies that show that wheat is uniquely bad as a refined carb as compared to other similar carbs, eg corn, rice, etc. tends to support that. I say that if people substitute corn, rice, potato chips, etc for wheat, they will likely have similar weight problems, blood sugar problems, visceral fat etc. I say similar refined carbs are just about as bad as wheat, unless you happen to be one of the minority of people who have problems with gluten. If you have studies that say otherwise, I'm sure we'd all like to see them. The simple truth is that almost all refined carbs have a significant impact on BG levels, be that wheat, snickers, coke, rice, etc. Exactly! *They're virtually the same. But they affect different people differently. And you have no way to determine how it might be affecting YOU unless you TEST. Back to the nonsense that everyone has to test BG response with everything they eat. Good grief. I thought this was a LC support group, not a group to drive people away from LC. I think to be focusing on one versus the others is more about selling books. No, it's about informing people of the DANGERS associated with wheat! Yes and when you have the studies to back up that wheat is significantly more dangerous than corn, rice, potato chips, soda, sugar, etc, let us know. The vast majority of people think wheat is actually good for them! That it's healthy, etc. *Well, it's NOT! *And the poor dumb schmucks like yourself, who listen to the ADA push wheat on people who already have diabetes(!) and say nothing about it are part of the ****ing problem! Asshole. Which of course is a lie. It was clear in another recent thread where this was discussed that I think the ADA is wrong. Remember? It was the thread where you were blaming Sam's Club because they had some dietary recommendations that were similar. As if Sam's Club originated the advice. It's not Sams', and I think it was Susan that pointed out it was similar to ADA. That apparently was a surprise to you, but not to me. You do all the testing on yourself that you want. I do! I don't recall a single non-diabetic here in the group doing BG testing. And that's a problem! Only according to you. Let's see, who should I believe? Dr. Atkins or the guy who says HIV is harmless? Why anyone who purports to be on a low-carb diet would ever eat a Snickers candy bar, drink a can of Coke, or eat two slices of bread, escapes me. Maybe because once in a while they feel like it and they aren't an extremist. But maybe they should be more extreme and less...wishy-washy? Why, just because you say so? No, because many wise scientists and doctors say so. Common sense says so. Who exacty are these wise scientists and doctors who say eating a dessert with sugar or a snickers bar once in a while for most of us doing LC is going to result in something bad? I've seen lots of people here over the years doing exactly that. It works for them. It works for me. If it brings on cravings for some and leads them to binge, then they shouldn't do it. Of course we know the kinds of folks you think are wise scientists. You cherish completely discredited AIDS denialists who are not even qualified in virology, who never treated an AIDS patient, etc. See: preventive medicine Who put you in charge? I'm not in charge of anything. But you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot say here, you little prick! Got that? I would never want to stop you from saying things here. Look where it's gotten you. Now for example everyone knows that you're an AIDS denialist and that you claim that no virus can cause cancer. I want you to expand your list of ignorance for all to see. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Insulin resistance | Martin Barrett | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 6 | May 30th, 2008 10:07 PM |
Fat causes insulin resistance? | Bob M | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 13 | March 26th, 2005 09:31 PM |
15 Year Study - Fast Food , Obesity and Insulin Resistance | jbuch | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 29 | January 9th, 2005 03:04 PM |
15 Year Study - Fast Food , Obesity and Insulin Resistance | MU | General Discussion | 0 | January 5th, 2005 11:27 PM |