Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Ask A Question
Confused About Insulin Resistance
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Miss_Dior" data-source="post: 859729" data-attributes="member: 181785"><p>Thanks for posting those links. Right, the Pima in Mexico (which is also North America) are not fat. Nor were the US Pima historically, and they certainly did eat a carb-heavy diet. </p><p></p><p>The Kendrick article made my blood boil. I know he's a hero to a lot of people but tough, it was fallaciously argued and sloppily reasoned. He left out facts that didn't suit his agenda. </p><p></p><p>The Pima of "North America" are obese and diabetic. Wrong. The Mexican Pima are fine.</p><p></p><p>Sumo wrestlers have a zero incidence of diabetes. Wrong, as an easy check of Pubmed shows:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/973605" target="_blank">The incidence of diabetes mellitus, gout, and hypertension in wrestlers was 5.2, 6.3, and 8.3%, respectively, all values being considerably higher than in controls. </a></p><p></p><p>He scoffed at scientific work in a university "You made a breakthrough discovery of the absolute bleeding obvious." No, they demonstrated how an observed pathway functions on a metabolic level. That's science. </p><p></p><p>"The reason why you die in type I diabetes has little to do with blood sugar levels." Um, no one ever said it did.</p><p></p><p>" Yes, carbohydrates would cause the greatest rise in insulin levels." Not so simple. <a href="http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf" target="_blank">Has Kendrick ever heard of the insulin index? </a></p><p></p><p>Kendrick is the only guy who notices that there's a difference between insulin response and BG. From the previous link: "Thus, postprandial insulin responses are not always proportional to blood glucose concentrations or to a meal's total carbohydrate content."</p><p></p><p>Last but not least, he's tilting at a windmill that's already been demolished (obesity=T2D), and offering an explanation that based on incomplete or distorted facts.</p><p></p><p>Gary Taubes also got the Pima wrong. He also wants you to think that carbs = insulin = diabesity. This isn't a political forum so I'll keep my opinions to myself, but I think it's relevant to point out that after their land was stolen and they were dispossessed, the government kindly sent them rations, made up of what we would call "junk food" today. Still, their diabetes rates only shot up after WWII. Why? Maybe they just weren't eating that much, even of the junk. They were still scrubbing out a living in a nearly waterless part of the desert, their carefully tended water resources having been taken by the US Government to give to white farmers. In the Pima, obesity and diabetes are almost a match, which is not so with South Indians, whose "personal fat threshold" (Prof. Taylor's phrase) appears to be much lower. They weren't fat, so they didn't get diabetes. What about their insulin levels then? I don't know.</p><p></p><p>Also, I think their prolonged period of starvation in the late 19th century might have done something epigenetically. The children of survivors of the Dutch famine were noted to have higher rates of diabetes than other kids of same cohort. Sorry, don't have time to cite - google it. They had undergone periods of scarcity historically, but not prolonged famine.</p><p></p><p>Anyway the Pima story story to me is that there are good carbs and bad carbs. And prolonged starvation is deeply damaging to the genome. Who'da thunk?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Miss_Dior, post: 859729, member: 181785"] Thanks for posting those links. Right, the Pima in Mexico (which is also North America) are not fat. Nor were the US Pima historically, and they certainly did eat a carb-heavy diet. The Kendrick article made my blood boil. I know he's a hero to a lot of people but tough, it was fallaciously argued and sloppily reasoned. He left out facts that didn't suit his agenda. The Pima of "North America" are obese and diabetic. Wrong. The Mexican Pima are fine. Sumo wrestlers have a zero incidence of diabetes. Wrong, as an easy check of Pubmed shows: [URL='http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/973605']The incidence of diabetes mellitus, gout, and hypertension in wrestlers was 5.2, 6.3, and 8.3%, respectively, all values being considerably higher than in controls. [/URL] He scoffed at scientific work in a university "You made a breakthrough discovery of the absolute bleeding obvious." No, they demonstrated how an observed pathway functions on a metabolic level. That's science. "The reason why you die in type I diabetes has little to do with blood sugar levels." Um, no one ever said it did. " Yes, carbohydrates would cause the greatest rise in insulin levels." Not so simple. [URL='http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf']Has Kendrick ever heard of the insulin index? [/URL] Kendrick is the only guy who notices that there's a difference between insulin response and BG. From the previous link: "Thus, postprandial insulin responses are not always proportional to blood glucose concentrations or to a meal's total carbohydrate content." Last but not least, he's tilting at a windmill that's already been demolished (obesity=T2D), and offering an explanation that based on incomplete or distorted facts. Gary Taubes also got the Pima wrong. He also wants you to think that carbs = insulin = diabesity. This isn't a political forum so I'll keep my opinions to myself, but I think it's relevant to point out that after their land was stolen and they were dispossessed, the government kindly sent them rations, made up of what we would call "junk food" today. Still, their diabetes rates only shot up after WWII. Why? Maybe they just weren't eating that much, even of the junk. They were still scrubbing out a living in a nearly waterless part of the desert, their carefully tended water resources having been taken by the US Government to give to white farmers. In the Pima, obesity and diabetes are almost a match, which is not so with South Indians, whose "personal fat threshold" (Prof. Taylor's phrase) appears to be much lower. They weren't fat, so they didn't get diabetes. What about their insulin levels then? I don't know. Also, I think their prolonged period of starvation in the late 19th century might have done something epigenetically. The children of survivors of the Dutch famine were noted to have higher rates of diabetes than other kids of same cohort. Sorry, don't have time to cite - google it. They had undergone periods of scarcity historically, but not prolonged famine. Anyway the Pima story story to me is that there are good carbs and bad carbs. And prolonged starvation is deeply damaging to the genome. Who'da thunk? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Ask A Question
Confused About Insulin Resistance
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…