• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Can you help me write my journal article or ad?

Do you have the "hunter" (thrifty) gene?

  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .
Hi

Don't get how genetic testing for ancestry would show anything. I guess that the 2 types of processing sugar have been around for eons. What would be different is how many people have each form of processing exist in each large group of humans. If famines were a general problem then the "hunter" form of processing would become prevalent. If there was no general famine problem then the "normal" form of processing would become prevalent. An exception would be where "hunting" was the only (major?) way of getting food.
 
@yetta2mymom Look back at your previous threads on the same topic. You can find them by looking at your profile and clicking the appropriate tab.

You'll then see answers to most of the points you're trying to explain. You'll also see the name of the 'hunter gene' doctor as I've already told you who I believe that is, and I've provided links.

You may also like to study the biology of pregnancy and HPL - Human Placental Lactogen. I can assure you that you dont have HPL circulating in you and making you insulin resistant. It is ONLY produced by the placenta during pregnancy!

I appreciate you've said it can take you days to process comments and criticism. That's fine : ) I suggest you go back to your other threads on the same subject and make notes on the replies you got, along with notes from this thread. You can then read through them at your leisure and as many times as you find helpful
 
Hi
My evidence is all anecdotal. I was in whole foods market and sprouting my theories when a person who identified himself as Indian became agitated and said "1/2 the population of India is prediabetic but they don't get diabetes". He then went on to say during pregnancy one form of starch lead to a major rise in blood sugar while another form of very similar starch had no effect (do not remember his exact words). After that encounter I interviewed most of the people who looked like they could be Indian. I found out that all the Indian women I interviewed (do they all come from the same part of India?) know about the sugar problem in pregnancy. I mentioned the nurse and my first encounter in my ad. She identified herself and went on to suggest the necessary diet in pregnancy, we had a mild disagreement I had problems with no sugar added ice cream and she recommended switching from fruit juice to milk. One of my fellow travelers has suggested that a major dilution of fruit juice with water works. I consider my first encounter serendipidy. I have no idea what my diets (word?) are. My purpose for this post is to find out what people think of my ad. You have given a critism which I take under advisement.
 
Hi
My very small feedback from Scientific American seem to like the sentence you don't. As I have indicated in this feed I take most criticism under advisement and often make a change many days later.
 
yetta2mymom said:
Hi
My very small feedback from Scientific American seem to like the sentence you don't. As I have indicated in this feed I take most criticism under advisement and often make a change many days later.
Click to expand...
Hi
I checked with Dr. V. He agreed that if the hormone is produced by the placenta it may be produced elsewhere. I emailed "I do not know enough could this go under the radar?". That was months ago Dr. V. does not respond when he thinks I could be right. I asked if I should consider his general non response that he wasn't interested. He indicated he reads my emails with interest. I emailed the doctor you suggested. I have gotten no response. His web site says nothing. You may be right but I can't be sure. If you can get better evidence I would appreciate same. I might add I am angry at the medical establishment (U.S.A.) as they stone wall me all the time. I emailed the world health organization in India about my thoughts and have not received a reply. That is what I have gotten to expect. My guess is I get a low ranked official who has standard answers to standard questions. Another peeve is that in 1957 when I had my probable auto immune response one of the symptoms I have been left with is the standard urinary problems related to the prostate becoming enlarged. No one responds to why don't you ask if the urinary problems are new.
 
Last edited:
@yetta2mymom I'm not a biologist or doctor, but I understand that HPL is produced by the part of the embryo that becomes the placenta around the time it (the embryo) attaches to the uterine wall. The production of HPL ceases immediately after the delivery of the placenta.

HPL is only produced by the placenta.
 
I have been in contact with a specialist and it has been found that RH is synonymous with pregnancy and often a symptom of gestational diabetes.

My lineage and others that are RH have nothing to do with where you born or your ancestry otherwise, why I have the condition and none of my immediate family have? (and I have a huge family!)
The reason why there are so few of us is because it is a relatively new condition that some endocrinologists have no knowledge of or how to look for it! The condition is rare because it is unusual for the endocrine system to produce the gut bacteria trigger to overshoot insulin. The answer you are looking for is endocrinology not genes! Everyone like fingerprints has a different gut bacteria and this brings about the individual symptoms and how we respond to different foods and meds.

You have RH and an intolerance to many foods, the why may never be found!

RH used to be called idiopathic post prandial hypoglycaemia.
The reason was because of the rare and unknown nature of how or why it was caused. My own condition does not have a cause or none that can be attributed to it.

Best wishes.
 
Hopefully I did not say all sugar problems in pregnancy are due to the "hunter" gene. In fact the main reason I would give money towards a study of GTT before, during and after pregnancy is to find out how much of the problem is due to the "hunter" gene.
 
Gestational diabetes is found globally and has nothing to do with genetics!
 
But, only you and this 'specialist' are espousing this theory.
Everything, every time you post, it is endocrinology, not genetics!
Endocrinologist and RH is not theory!
I really doubt that you have seen a recent endocrinologist who would explain as I have the intractable diagnosis of RH!
I repeat again, RH is endocrinology and nothing to do with genetics!
There are so many holes in your thesis, would not stand up to a specialist endocrinologist.

My last post on this!
 
nosher8355 said:
Gestational diabetes is found globally and has nothing to do with genetics!
Click to expand...
According to this journal article, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17346148 , it's likely that there is a genetic component:-

GDM is considered to result from interaction between genetic and environmental risk factors. Genetic predisposition to GDM has been suggested since GDM clusters in families. Also, women with mutations in MODY (Maturity onset diabetes of the young) genes often present with GDM. In addition, common variants in several candidate genes (e.g. potassium inwardly rectifying channel subfamily J, member 11 [KCNJ11], Glucokinase [GCK], Hepatocyte nuclear factor-1alpha [HNF1A] etc.) have been demonstrated to increase the risk of GDM.​
 

Thanks @Dark Horse .
I dont mind being proved wrong or cross reference about new studies.
The report you posted is to do with other conditions than the one the op is theorising.
He is trying to link RH and a gene that cannot be proved. And is more likely to be explained as the reason why he is RH, if he would get specialist help by a endocrinologist that has studied Hypoglycaemia and has experience of diagnosis, than his last OGTT, decades ago.
The reason why, May never be found or his infatuation with his theory.

Definitely my last post on this!
 
Hi
Some people believe authority. I am always skeptical. I have shown that my blood pressure does not need meds for control even when doctors said I was going outside of their protocol. High blood pressure is often fundamentally due to too much insulin in the blood due to our diet. I eat very little sugar/starch therefore I do not have high blood pressure. I have shown that not all prediabetics are due to become diabetics. Outside of their protocol. I have overwhelming anecdotal evidence that people with the "hunter" gene get diabetes in pregnancy. Doctors have given up looking for genetic causes of diabetes and assumed they are all hormonal related. I did not know how much they had found were hormonal related. Thanks.
 
So maybe I missed something??
Higher blood pressure is "fundamentally"
Caused by too much insulin?!!
Can you show evidence of this?
A study? a report? I'm not trying to be cheeky here I am really intrested.
 
Contralto said:
I also have some Celtic blood from them thar Swiss parts since one of my glorious backwoods ancestors made the chance decision to marry one of your kind four generations ago.
Click to expand...
Ahh so you must have the eating chocolate not getting a BG rise "gene" too.
 
Intre
 
Ahh that's unfortunate.
I eat the 70% just a few squares as long as my cab count has been low for the day.
So as much as I like to believe it. My Swiss blood doesn't help me that much either.
Funny though it never spikes me as much as a piece of bread or other grains do.

Maybe this would help our researcher.

Anecdotalevidence is evidence from anecdotes. Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[1][2] Anecdotal evidence is considered within the scope of scientific method for claims regarding particular instances, for example the use of case studies in medicine because some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, while other anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method.
 
Hotpepper20000 said:
So maybe I missed something??
Higher blood pressure is "fundamentally"
Caused by too much insulin?!!
Can you show evidence of this?
A study? a report? I'm not trying to be cheeky here I am really intrested.
Click to expand...
Hi

I am a theoretician. I put my money where my mouth is and removed my meds (beta blocker, vaso relaxer and diuretic) one at a time because I was on a very low sugar/starch diet and that is my theory. My blood pressure before and after the meds remained about the same about 122/90 (sometimes the lower figure is lower). Since the last medication I removed was a vaso relaxer and it was only 1 week before my last reading I have hope that the 90 will go lower. I have overstated a little since I just removed my diuretic. I have very little faith in doctors understanding of sugar metabolism.
 
Ah so your "fundamentals" are purely based your own "anecdotal" evidence.
Pretty arrogant.
This disease is not a one size fits all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…