Joseph Kraft and hidden diabetes

[LucySW]

This is all looking very Fung-y, isn't it.

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

So I did a little googling with respect to elevated plasm insulin and it turns out elevated insulin levels (without elevated blood glucose) are associated with:

• increased cancer rates,
• stroke,
• atherosclerosis,
• coronary artery disease,
• high uric acid (gout?),
• hypertension,
• elevated plasma triglyceride levels,
• PCOS,
• acne,
• skin tags,
• male balding,
• juvenile-onset myopia,
• ischemic heart disease, and
• probably other nasties that I didn't get to.

Looking at that list I think one could lump them together as "Western civilization diseases".

In other words, many of the people with elevated insulin levels lucky enough not to get type 2 diabetes may not be so lucky after all.

 

[Lamont D]

I've been uncomfortable with this thread and didn't want to really add anything until I could really take it all in, which ain't going to happen soon.

Ok I do take the thread seriously because what it implies that excessive insulin can do great damage. I don't want to use the list above, but many of my symptoms were taking me to be very ill! I have excepted that and I have to live my lifestyle because of it!

Through my experience, I know that insulin causes fat to be stored around the body. The fact that something that is supposed to help you can kill you if not treated properly, it is a long term killer and the science is somewhat behind the conditions caused by it.

We use insulin to treat all types of blood glucose disorders, I even take a gliptin that produces more insulin because of my glucose, glycogen and glucagon imbalance.
So why doesn't it cause more damage if we don't eat carbs?
There must be a relationship between carbs, sugars and digestion process that gets rid of the excess insulin?
Am I too concerned about this thread and the excess insulin production, do I have anything to be worried about?
If the majority of the population is abnormal, am I normal and not weird!

 

[Scardoc]

This is kind of interesting regarding hyperinsulinemia with respect to western diets and pre-western contact diets:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2008/08/cardiovascular-risk-factors-on-kitava_17.html

"We can guess that total fat, saturated fat and carbohydrate do not cause hyperinsulinemia, based on data from the Inuit, the Masai and the Kitavans, respectively. We can also guess that there's not some specific food that protects these populations, since they eat completely different things. Exercise also can not completely account for these findings. What does that leave us with? Western food habits. In my opinion, the trail of metabolic destruction that has followed Westerners throughout the world is probably due in large part to industrial foods, including refined wheat flour, sugar and seed oils."

I have doubts about the exercise levels of Kitavans being much the same - have a look on Google images and tell me what the average Kitavan looks like physically? They are traditional farmers. Send them mechanisation, electronic gadgets, cars and convenience food and go back in ten years time. Google images will show a different picture.

 

[LucySW]

I've been uncomfortable with this thread and didn't want to really add anything until I could really take it all in, which ain't going to happen soon.

Ok I do take the thread seriously because what it implies that excessive insulin can do great damage. I don't want to use the list above, but many of my symptoms were taking me to be very ill! I have excepted that and I have to live my lifestyle because of it!

Through my experience, I know that insulin causes fat to be stored around the body. The fact that something that is supposed to help you can kill you if not treated properly, it is a long term killer and the science is somewhat behind the conditions caused by it.

We use insulin to treat all types of blood glucose disorders, I even take a gliptin that produces more insulin because of my glucose, glycogen and glucagon imbalance.
So why doesn't it cause more damage if we don't eat carbs?
There must be a relationship between carbs, sugars and digestion process that gets rid of the excess insulin?
Am I too concerned about this thread and the excess insulin production, do I have anything to be worried about?
If the majority of the population is abnormal, am I normal and not weird!

Nosher,

I don't know where this takes us either - that's why I posted it so fully - but the thing about excessive insulin harming us is about *excessive* insulin, no? I take this to mean, just for me and my children, that getting one's insulin TDD down as low as one can manage - the best one can actually practically do - is good. And that I should try hard to find clever ways of getting my family's insulin resistance down too.

As I read it, Kraft is talking about huge levels of over-produced insulin washing around because the insulin receptors aren't working. If we're working on getting our IR down, that's good work isn't it? And we can only try.

There's no contract that if we are good, this horrible disease will honour the bargain and let us off. Is there.

 

[Winnie53]

Great summary. Great questions Lucy. I'm going to revisit this topic and responses this weekend when I'm not on the move.

 

[TooMuchGlucose]

I watched the video and a lot of what was mentioned appears to be valid.

A few correlating factors in relation to the increasing rates of diagnosis of diabetes further strengthen Kraft's ideas;

High amounts of carbohydrates, rice a processed carbohydrate is often used in Chinese and South Asian diets (two ethnic groups associated with a higher risk of 'developing' type 2). More carbohydrates, more insulin needed.

Coeliac disease is quite common among type 1s (not sure about others) which would also suggest that refined carbohydrates (in this case wheat and other grains ) are part of the problem. This would give further evidence to the idea that carbohydrates are not good for the body.

The reduced amount of activity/exercise that people do, much less than even thirty years ago it is known that exercise increases insulin sensitivity, less insulin need means a lower amount of insulin in the body therefore less likely to have hyperinsulinaemia.

Sadly this doesn't really seem to give a cause for type 1 it does seem to help manage it.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Lamont D]

Nosher,

I don't know where this takes us either - that's why I posted it so fully - but the thing about excessive insulin harming us is about *excessive* insulin, no? I take this to mean, just for me and my children, that getting one's insulin TDD down as low as one can manage - the best one can actually practically do - is good. And that I should try hard to find clever ways of getting my family's insulin resistance down too.

As I read it, Kraft is talking about huge levels of over-produced insulin washing around because the insulin receptors aren't working. If we're working on getting our IR down, that's good work isn't it? And we can only try.

There's no contract that if we are good, this horrible disease will honour the bargain and let us off. Is there.

Thanks Lucy. I had a feeling that like most of life is a bit of a lottery and we have to handle what fate throws at us.
As I said the answer is to reduce the risks because of the imbalance in my endocrine behaviour towards carbs.
That's no guarantee either!

So we have to live, the way we do to offset our conditions. And hope that something else doesn't come along to kick us in the b....s!

Still like to think that it was the carbs that have done this to me!
My weight gain, my illness, my symptoms and my excessive insulin, were doing so much harm because of what is termed normal food.
And the worst part that it took so long and not one doctor knew what or how to deal with it till I got a referral to my consultant!
If it wasn't for a fortuitous set of circumstances, I could be very ill or possibly dead!

 

[FatEmperor]

This will help explain guys: http://www.thefatemperor.com/blog/2015/9/7/kraft-summary-re-post-for-those-who-missed-it

as will this delightful viewing experience: http://www.thefatemperor.com/blog/2...present-the-kraft-interview-decoding-diabetes

...and the short video version: http://www.thefatemperor.com/blog/2...resents-catherine-crofts-on-krafts-great-work

happy learning folks

best

ivor cummins BE(Chem) CEng MIEI

 

[tim2000s]

There's no contract that if we are good, this horrible disease will honour the bargain and let us off. Is there.

Especially if you have an autoimmune version...

 

[tim2000s]

And as if by magic, this appeared on the newsbot today: http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/thr...-2-diabetes-or-prediabetes-study-finds.83733/

 

[reidpj]

So I did a little googling with respect to elevated plasm insulin and it turns out elevated insulin levels (without elevated blood glucose) are associated with:

• increased cancer rates,
• stroke,
• atherosclerosis,
• coronary artery disease,
• high uric acid (gout?),
• hypertension,
• elevated plasma triglyceride levels,
• PCOS,
• acne,
• skin tags,
• male balding,
• juvenile-onset myopia,
• ischemic heart disease, and
• probably other nasties that I didn't get to.

Looking at that list I think one could lump them together as "Western civilization diseases".

In other words, many of the people with elevated insulin levels lucky enough not to get type 2 diabetes may not be so lucky after all.

Ken Surkaris's graph showing the correlation between A1c and blood insulin levels (using c-peptide). "Most Australians who die from a heart attack, are doing so with pre-diabetic A1c's (higher blood insulin)" - not a direct quote.

 

[FatEmperor]

So I did a little googling with respect to elevated plasm insulin and it turns out elevated insulin levels (without elevated blood glucose) are associated with:

• increased cancer rates,
• stroke,
• atherosclerosis,
• coronary artery disease,
• high uric acid (gout?),
• hypertension,
• elevated plasma triglyceride levels,
• PCOS,
• acne,
• skin tags,
• male balding,
• juvenile-onset myopia,
• ischemic heart disease, and
• probably other nasties that I didn't get to.

Looking at that list I think one could lump them together as "Western civilization diseases".

In other words, many of the people with elevated insulin levels lucky enough not to get type 2 diabetes may not be so lucky after all.

Bang on point Lucy - hyperinsulinemia rules the chronic disease roost !

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

Bang on point Lucy - hyperinsulinemia rules the chronic disease roost !

Don't call me Lucy!

 

[FatEmperor]

Don't call me Lucy!

ooops sorry - dunno where I thought I saw Lucy - thanks for getting Kraft's work out there !

 

[LucySW]

I just found a discussion of this 1990 paper, which seems to be saying that radioimmunoassays of plasma insulin overstate insulin levels because they include proinsulin, which is a precursor to fully formed insulin but isn't biologically active, and which is also over-produced in relation to insulin by both T1Ds and T2Ds. That article is behind a paywall so one can't see if it discussed Kraft. One of the authors was John Yudkin, he of Pure, White and Deadly, so far ahead of his time. OTOH if it isn't discussing Kraft, it may be that it's discussing a different radioimmunoassay technology. One of Kraft's gripes was that procedures were not standardised and therefore were not comparable, so somewhat meaningless.

I don't pretend to make claims about what the detail of this means.

Edit: From the title of this 2007 article,'''Insulin immunoassays: fast approaching 50 years of existence and still calling for standardization,' enough said.

 

[FatEmperor]

I just found a discussion of this 1990 paper, which seems to be saying that radioimmunoassays of plasma insulin overstate insulin levels because they include proinsulin, which is a precursor to fully formed insulin but isn't biologically active, and which is also over-produced in relation to insulin by both T1Ds and T2Ds. That article is behind a paywall so one can't see if it discussed Kraft. One of the authors was John Yudkin, he of Pure, White and Deadly, so far ahead of his time. OTOH if it isn't discussing Kraft, it may be that it's discussing a different radioimmunoassay technology. One of Kraft's gripes was that procedures were not standardised and therefore were not comparable, so somewhat meaningless.

I don't pretend to make claims about what the detail of this means.

Edit: From the title of this 2007 article,'''Insulin immunoassays: fast approaching 50 years of existence and still calling for standardization,' enough said.

thanks - this is generally a problem when assessing people with benign pancreatic tumors (insulinomas) as they pump out proinsulin and not all gets converted - it will not affect Kraft's conclusions, but I will get the full version to peruse regardless

 

[RuthW]

How could Kraft's evidence possibly be bettered, Ruth? Nor would I describe the medical community as evidence-based. Closed-minded, rather.

Yes, it's the question 'What is normal' where the importance of his research lies. It certainly tells us something - the question is, what, isn't it. My best make of it so far is above: we redefine diabetes as the later end of a disorder of insulin metabolism.

Well, I am happy to see you can listen to Tim on why he might be wrong about "normal" now, so I'll leave that point.

I'll also point out that your definition of "diabetes" leaves a bit to be desired biologically. In my case, and in the case of most Type 1s, it is part of an autoimmune disorder, which has several other elements, the insulin issue being only one of the symptoms of my autoimmune disorder. Certainly it is the part on which people tend to concentrate because it's the part likely to be fatal first. But it's not the only part.

I tend to take a wider view of my health and my autoimmune disorder. It's not just all about insulin and blood sugar.

So, for example, the micro-focus on insulin tends to leave out the wider genetic aspects of diabetes and its interrelation with other disorders. Her's a very nice example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26209325

This relationship was first remarked on in the nineteenth century, in fact.

There are other possible factors to take into account. As well as the genetic aspects of immune disorders, there are the environmental "triggers". People tend to assume that gluttony is the "trigger" for Type 2, but in my opinion it is much more likely that, like Type 1 and schizophrenia, the guilty culprit is probably a virus. We get it, it seems to pass, but it triggers the disorder. We know, for example, that you are much more likely to get schizophrenia if you live in a city. Both Type 1 and Type 2 have exploded in the last century, all over the world. From an epidemiological point of view, that suggests that urbanization, and therefore contact with more viruses, etc at least correlates with that spread.

So, yes, I'm not particularly convinced of this guy's genius. I think he's missing the main point.

And you ask "then if this pattern had always existed, the lifestyle diseases associated with insulin resistance – diabetes, high blood pressure, atherosclerosis, some cancers – shouldn’t have peaked in the twentieth century.)"

Well, that would be true if all that had not coincided with the discovery and spread of antibiotics. People who would previously have died young of infectious diseases now survive to die of other things.

 

[FatEmperor]

Well, I am happy to see you can listen to Tim on why he might be wrong about "normal" now, so I'll leave that point.

I'll also point out that your definition of "diabetes" leaves a bit to be desired biologically. In my case, and in the case of most Type 1s, it is part of an autoimmune disorder, which has several other elements, the insulin issue being only one of the symptoms of my autoimmune disorder. Certainly it is the part on which people tend to concentrate because it's the part likely to be fatal first. But it's not the only part.

I tend to take a wider view of my health and my autoimmune disorder. It's not just all about insulin and blood sugar.

For Type 1 sufferers. it is crucial to minimize carb and moderate protein to limit exogenous insulin much as possible. Exogenous insulin enters the periphery, and much is needed as glucagon suppression in the pancreas ideally requires the localized insulin there to act on the alpha cells. (please watch this hugely important lecture from Professor Unger:

). Type 1 people are exposed to the ravages of insulin / insulin resistance if they don't minimize their physiological needs via low carb living - a very long life is possible via this route, exploiting pure biochemical reality.

Type 1 become Type 2 when over-requiring injected insulin, and Type 2 become Type 1 when they finally exhaust their pancreatic beta cells. The tragedy is that both can prevent progression of disease by removing the root causal factor - excessive carbohydrate. Please help others understand this fundamental reality. I'd suggest you google Dr. Jason Fung also - an insightful nephrologist who has rather cracked the case open....

 

[FatEmperor]

Well, I am happy to see you can listen to Tim on why he might be wrong about "normal" now, so I'll leave that point.

I'll also point out that your definition of "diabetes" leaves a bit to be desired biologically. In my case, and in the case of most Type 1s, it is part of an autoimmune disorder, which has several other elements, the insulin issue being only one of the symptoms of my autoimmune disorder. Certainly it is the part on which people tend to concentrate because it's the part likely to be fatal first. But it's not the only part.

I tend to take a wider view of my health and my autoimmune disorder. It's not just all about insulin and blood sugar.

So, for example, the micro-focus on insulin tends to leave out the wider genetic aspects of diabetes and its interrelation with other disorders. Her's a very nice example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26209325

This relationship was first remarked on in the nineteenth century, in fact.

There are other possible factors to take into account. As well as the genetic aspects of immune disorders, there are the environmental "triggers". People tend to assume that gluttony is the "trigger" for Type 2, but in my opinion it is much more likely that, like Type 1 and schizophrenia, the guilty culprit is probably a virus. We get it, it seems to pass, but it triggers the disorder. We know, for example, that you are much more likely to get schizophrenia if you live in a city. Both Type 1 and Type 2 have exploded in the last century, all over the world. From an epidemiological point of view, that suggests that urbanization, and therefore contact with more viruses, etc at least correlates with that spread.

So, yes, I'm not particularly convinced of this guy's genius. I think he's missing the main point.

And you ask "then if this pattern had always existed, the lifestyle diseases associated with insulin resistance – diabetes, high blood pressure, atherosclerosis, some cancers – shouldn’t have peaked in the twentieth century.)"

Well, that would be true if all that had not coincided with the discovery and spread of antibiotics. People who would previously have died young of infectious diseases now survive to die of other things.

A virus? for Type 2 Diabetes? Oh lord, this goes against pretty much ALL science and engineering on the topic. I give up. (As for Kraft missing the point - you will have to give a cogent argument as to why that could possibly be true - the stuff you said above is rather risible...)