Atkins was right

Sleepyman wrote:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 18:40:42 -0400, Sleepyman wrote:

Jackie, I mistakenly deleted your reply to me, about this post,
without reading it. Would you care to repost it?

But you saw it, right? It's not on my newserver, so I must've
inadvertently emailed it instead of posting. Brain fart.

I'll repost or immediatly post.

Also, did you see the post I left for you about test studies?

Yup, and I replied to that also, I thought.

--
Newbie tip: Read the FAQ. It's posted here daily, contains tons of
great info on low-carbing and lots of links to more great info and tons
of recipes too!

Jackie Patti wrote:

But you saw it, right? It's not on my newserver, so I must've
inadvertently emailed it instead of posting. Brain fart.

No, turns out I didn't inadvertently email it, but posted. Here it is:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm... utput=gplain

--
Newbie tip: Read the FAQ. It's posted here daily, contains tons of
great info on low-carbing and lots of links to more great info and tons
of recipes too!

"Jackie Patti" wrote ...
Supergoof wrote:

So the medical fraternity go on about the obesity epidemic and diabetes
epidemic, telling us that being obese will give us diabetes.

Yeah, I think that is backwards... I think insulin resistance causes
obesity.
[snippage]
And does that mean we're breeding more and more people with that genetic
predisposition to diabetes?

I don't think so. I think we've probably always had the same proportion
of people susceptible to diabetes, but a worsening of the average diet
means more people actually develop it.
[snip]
So if I, with insulin resistance, had continued to eat crap and get
fatter
was I guaranteed to get full blown diabetes in the future?

Ummm... yeah. "Guaranteed" seems the wrong word though.

If you keep spiking your blood sugar, you increase your insulin
resistance and decrease your insulin production, basically your health
deteriorating towards the flatout diagnosis.

Insulin resistance *is* diabetes, it's just a matter of extreme. It's
like... being 40 pounds overweight versus 80 lbs overweight - both are
the same problem, just one is more extreme than another.

Thanks for the clear explanation Jackie!

Interesting to think what my future health might be had I not cut the carbs.

cheers
Rachel
(New Zealand)

"Lictor" wrote ...
"Supergoof" wrote ...

Are you saying that this only the case if you're genetically predisposed
to diabetes in the first place?
[snip]
Having diabete in your familly seems to play a major role. This doesn't
mean
you will never get diabete if it's not in the familly, it just means the
risk is much lower. If you're a Pima Native American, you have very very
bad
genetics that will make getting diabete very likely, whatever you do.
Other
people can grow very fat for a number of reasons, and yet have lower
insulin
resistance than many slim people...
[snip]
Diabete is a multi-factor diseases. It mixes genetics, behaviour, diet and
probably many other factors. It's difficult to isolate one factor from the
others.

Thanks for the info

Interestingly, nobody in my family on either side has or had diabetes that
I'm aware of, so I guess that's a good thing. My mother is also an 'apple'
shape though, so it's possible she's has undiagnosed insulin resistance,
though she's never had any problems that I would relate to insulin problems
(I only had a GTT and was diagnosed IR after finding I was getting the
shakes if I left my evening meal too late, and they would go within 10
minutes of eating - I got suspicious because I have PCOS and IR often goes
with it [it's chicken and egg whether PCOS causes IR or IR causes PCOS - or
something else causes both!]).

cheers
Rachel
(New Zealand)

"Lictor" wrote ...
"JC Der Koenig" wrote ...
"Lictor" wrote ...
other the poor little thing
starts to wither from inaction.

Can I get a translation into English on this?

It made sense to me - sounds like you have a comprehension problem if you
can't work out what was trying to be said.


No, you will have to use your brain.

*snort*

I think trolling and the use of one's brain are mutually exclusive
activities.


Rachel
(New Zealand)

"Sleepyman" wrote ...
"Supergoof" wrote:

If obesity led directly to diabetes, then all obese people should be
diabetic, and there should be no skinny diabetics. Any doc who says
obesity causes diabetes, is wrong. If anything the opposite may be
true. Many think that insulin resistance in a diabetic, is what causes
weight gain.

Thanks.
I guess I'm lucky in that my doc said as much to me - when she told me about
the IR and how it made my body exceptionally good at gaining and keeping
weight, I joked "so you mean I'm not fat because I eat to much and don't
exercise?" She deadpanned "most people aren't."


The standards for being Dx'd diabetes, have changed radically in the
last few years. Thus many would not have been Dx'd a few years ago,
now are. Thus more diabetics.

Why have the standards changed? Is it pressure from the drug companies
selling diabetes meds (my cynical side likes to believe this).


Insulin resistance is a warning. It is not a diagnoses on it's own
however. We are also seeing a rise in Diabetes diagnoses, because many
pre-disposed people in fact *are* eating a more dangerous diet.

When you think about it, so many 'low fat' products contain higher sugars
than the regular variety of the same food, so while trying to be healthier
people are actually eating more sugar than ever before.

No wonder people don't know who to believe any more.

cheers
Rachel
(New Zealand)

Lost any weight lately?

--
"If I can't *count* the carbs, it can't be part of a
low-carb diet." --- jpatti


"Supergoof" wrote in message
news:1081826724.866623@muldoon...
"Lictor" wrote ...
"JC Der Koenig" wrote ...
"Lictor" wrote ...
other the poor little thing
starts to wither from inaction.

Can I get a translation into English on this?

It made sense to me - sounds like you have a comprehension problem if you
can't work out what was trying to be said.


No, you will have to use your brain.

*snort*

I think trolling and the use of one's brain are mutually exclusive
activities.


Rachel
(New Zealand)

Most people are fat because they are too stupid to figure out how to not be
fat.

--
"If I can't *count* the carbs, it can't be part of a
low-carb diet." --- jpatti


"Supergoof" wrote in message
news:1081827241.957497@muldoon...

I guess I'm lucky in that my doc said as much to me - when she told me
about
the IR and how it made my body exceptionally good at gaining and keeping
weight, I joked "so you mean I'm not fat because I eat to much and don't
exercise?" She deadpanned "most people aren't."

"Supergoof" wrote in message
news:1081827241.957497@muldoon...
The standards for being Dx'd diabetes, have changed radically in the
last few years. Thus many would not have been Dx'd a few years ago,
now are. Thus more diabetics.

Why have the standards changed? Is it pressure from the drug companies
selling diabetes meds (my cynical side likes to believe this).

Maybe your cynical side is partly right.
Another reason is that the earlier you diagnose diabete, the sooner you
treat it, and the lesser the chances of severe complications. A majority of
the people with diabete used to be diagnosed when they already had a
complication, the complication actually lead to the diagnosis. That's why
the "pre-diabetic" category was created, so that people would have an early
warning and treatement without having them freaking out at the "diabete"
name.
When you design a test like this, it's usually a choice between good
screening (less false positives) and good sensitivity (less undetected
condition). For instance, when testing for AIDS in blood stocks, you want
the highest sensitivity you can, even if some false positives make you throw
away good blood, because throwing away the blood is a lesser cost when
compared to contaminating people (at least, when the people operating that
business have some ethics). That's the same with diabete. The cost of not
detecting someone is that he will come back later with an already ongoing
severe complication. The cost of falsely detecting someone as diabetic will
be that he will get treated without needing it. But since early treatement
mainly involves having an healthier diet and exercising more, it's not a bad
thing to treat a few false positives...

When you think about it, so many 'low fat' products contain higher sugars
than the regular variety of the same food, so while trying to be healthier
people are actually eating more sugar than ever before.

The goal of low fat products (or any "diet" product for that matter) is not
to make people less fat - that would be counter-productive from a business
point of view. The goal to make more money by selling overpriced stuff to a
market where people consumme a lot. All studies so far have shown that the
only net effect of diet products is that people adjust and eat more of them.
If you feed half-calories products to fat people, they will just eat twice
the amount - and sometimes even more because of the desinhibiting effect of
eating diet products ("they're diet product! They're good for me, I should
eat more!"). That's a dream come true for the food industry : you sell
overpriced products, where half the good stuff has been replaced with water,
air or any other calorie-less inexpensive stuff *and* people will eat even
more of it as a result... If it makes more normal people grow overweight, so
much the better! It's always good business practice to expand your market...

"Lictor" wrote ...
"Supergoof" wrote ...

When you think about it, so many 'low fat' products contain higher
sugars
than the regular variety of the same food, so while trying to be
healthier
people are actually eating more sugar than ever before.

The goal of low fat products (or any "diet" product for that matter) is
not
to make people less fat - that would be counter-productive from a business
point of view. The goal to make more money by selling overpriced stuff to
a
market where people consumme a lot. All studies so far have shown that the
only net effect of diet products is that people adjust and eat more of
them.
If you feed half-calories products to fat people, they will just eat twice
the amount - and sometimes even more because of the desinhibiting effect
of
eating diet products ("they're diet product! They're good for me, I should
eat more!"). That's a dream come true for the food industry : you sell
overpriced products, where half the good stuff has been replaced with
water,
air or any other calorie-less inexpensive stuff *and* people will eat even
more of it as a result... If it makes more normal people grow overweight,
so
much the better! It's always good business practice to expand your
market...

So true ... and yet so terribly depressing at the same time \

cheers
Rachel
(New Zealand)