How insulin resistance begins in muscles

[Bluetit1802]

I believe ground up apricot kernels contain cyanide and actually cause cancer.

https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/160427

 

[Oldvatr]

I believe ground up apricot kernels contain cyanide and actually cause cancer.

Close/ The kernals contain a compound that reacts with the HCL in the stomach to create cyanide. Yes that advice they gave is truly toxic, but to be fair is not directly from WFPB - it is actually a tenet of the Alkaline Diet, which gets mixed into the MLM spiel to flog supplements that are Whole Food, Macrobiotic, antioxident etc. so must be healthy. blah, blah.

The person selling these supplements is also using the "save the world by making people healthy" mantra, and combines this with it being God's calling to them to do this to save humanity. My wife is very religious, so this message takes priority over any earthbound message such as LCHF.

 

[Tannith]

Close/ The kernals contain a compound that reacts with the HCL in the stomach to create cyanide. Yes that advice they gave is truly toxic, but to be fair is not directly from WFPB - it is actually a tenet of the Alkaline Diet, which gets mixed into the MLM spiel to flog supplements that are Whole Food, Macrobiotic, antioxident etc. so must be healthy. blah, blah.

The person selling these supplements is also using the "save the world by making people healthy" mantra, and combines this with it being God's calling to them to do this to save humanity. My wife is very religious, so this message takes priority over any earthbound message such as LCHF.

I m sorry to hear about your wife and son's ill health and wish them the best of luck in improving their conditions. I had an aunt with Parkinsons. She lived to 93, was stick thin and had never eaten any dairy in her whole adult life.

 

[Oldvatr]

I m sorry to hear about your wife and son's ill health and wish them the best of luck in improving their conditions. I had an aunt with Parkinsons. She lived to 93, was stick thin and had never eaten any dairy in her whole adult life.

Thank you for these thoughts. It is indeed a battle on many fronts, and my wife is also bi-polar and currently in maniic phase, so is herself now out to save the world. Glory Hallelujah!

I may be gone for some time........ She needs 24/7 care now, or more like 24/7 surveillance The trouble is that the mental health treatments are directly opposing the Parkinsons treatment and we have an extra juggling act to fine tune both for best effect.

 

[AdamJames]

I'd think that >50g of carbs combined with fat covers almost everyone in the western world.
We could see a rise in metabolic disorders and heart disease at any moment!

we already are!

We ARE seeing a rise in metabolic disorders and heart disease at EVERY moment !

Perhaps I was being a bit too deadpan

LOL. And many many people eating more than the average >250g carbs with high fat.

You got it. Thanks

Anyway I'll get my coat

 

[AdamJames]

Sorry I go by the pattern I see reading others experience as well as just my own experience, One person crying in the wilderness is just that, but a thousand voices in unison has more credibility. When there are scientific studies involving many thousands, supporting the statements being made, then it starts to have momentum.

On the other hand I see guys like Michael Greger writing books and blogs, and when I ask if there is supporting evidence either by the OP personal experience, or scientific studies from independnt sources, then there is suddenly silence, or more links to glossy sales sites like NutritionFacts.

I presume the pattern you are talking about is the fact that many people are eating high fat and very low carb diets to tackle Type 2?

In which case I suspect that the biggest part of the challenge will be to convince the general public, and health professionals, that that way of eating leads to good *long term* outcomes.

In its favour I think we have:

* The general pattern in the western world over the last few decades: When told to avoid fat and eat lots of carbs, those populations produce a lot of individuals with metabolic disorders, heart problems and obesity.

* Short-term studies: It's now clear that if you do LCHF right - and the means what I would call "V"LCHF, then: 1) Over the short term, markers in a person's bloodstream *improve*, i.e. from our current understanding of what causes of heart problems, we might expect that person to be *less* likely to develop heart problems. And 2) It's good at avoiding excessive blood sugar levels, which is widely recognised to be a problem for anyone, and in particular of course people with diabetes.

But against it we have:

* After we've been told to avoid fat for decades, if we are now going to be told to embrace it, and cut out as many carbs as possible, it's 1) Going to take a lot of evidence to un-wire people's beliefs and 2) Going to cause people to lose faith in anything anyone in authority tells them about what we should be eating. If 'They' can get it so wrong in the past, how much better as the latest advice from 'Them' going to be? People are going to want extremely convincing *long term* data to convince them that a radical change in diet isn't going to be the latest fad which will cut 20 years off their lives / give them a heart attack.

* It's technical. How many typical people - not people with Type 2 who are reading this thread - but typical people - can be trusted to 'get it right'? I mean I've been reading around this subject for a while now, and it was only recently I became aware of the study I linked to earlier in this thread: Eating lots of fat is only really safe if you consciously ensure - by looking at ingredients, weighing things, etc - that you are getting very very few carbs indeed.

 

[first14808]

Fat in your bloodstream, either from your own fat stores or from your diet can build up inside your muscle cells where it can create toxic breakdown products and free radicals that block the insulin signalling process. No matter how much insulin you produce, your fat compromised muscle cells can’t effectively use it.

Yes! Lock up all the radicals! Especially if they sell competing diets!

But I think this theory.. glosses over a few things. Like the generally accepted theory:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate

The miracle 'food' that powers us, and this:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycolysis

For how we feed ATP. Problem with the quote is muscle fibres don't store fat, they store a limited amount of glycogen. So there's no 'fat compromise', they're just full unless the muscles are doing work and using the stored glycogen. If they're full, then excess fuel is stored in our fat cells, ie adipocytes, and it's those that seem to be the main challenge with insulin resistance.

 

[Oldvatr]

Yes! Lock up all the radicals! Especially if they sell competing diets!

But I think this theory.. glosses over a few things. Like the generally accepted theory:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate

The miracle 'food' that powers us, and this:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycolysis

For how we feed ATP. Problem with the quote is muscle fibres don't store fat, they store a limited amount of glycogen. So there's no 'fat compromise', they're just full unless the muscles are doing work and using the stored glycogen. If they're full, then excess fuel is stored in our fat cells, ie adipocytes, and it's those that seem to be the main challenge with insulin resistance.

Krebs in a nutshell. This is how I see things too. Lipids only get involved later on down the line when the adipocyte stores get used when blood glucose levels drop and the glycogen local stores are depleted.

 

[Boo1979]

I presume the pattern you are talking about is the fact that many people are eating high fat and very low carb diets to tackle Type 2?

In which case I suspect that the biggest part of the challenge will be to convince the general public, and health professionals, that that way of eating leads to good *long term* outcomes.

In its favour I think we have:

* The general pattern in the western world over the last few decades: When told to avoid fat and eat lots of carbs, those populations produce a lot of individuals with metabolic disorders, heart problems and obesity.

* Short-term studies: It's now clear that if you do LCHF right - and the means what I would call "V"LCHF, then: 1) Over the short term, markers in a person's bloodstream *improve*, i.e. from our current understanding of what causes of heart problems, we might expect that person to be *less* likely to develop heart problems. And 2) It's good at avoiding excessive blood sugar levels, which is widely recognised to be a problem for anyone, and in particular of course people with diabetes.

But against it we have:

* After we've been told to avoid fat for decades, if we are now going to be told to embrace it, and cut out as many carbs as possible, it's 1) Going to take a lot of evidence to un-wire people's beliefs and 2) Going to cause people to lose faith in anything anyone in authority tells them about what we should be eating. If 'They' can get it so wrong in the past, how much better as the latest advice from 'Them' going to be? People are going to want extremely convincing *long term* data to convince them that a radical change in diet isn't going to be the latest fad which will cut 20 years off their lives / give them a heart attack.

* It's technical. How many typical people - not people with Type 2 who are reading this thread - but typical people - can be trusted to 'get it right'? I mean I've been reading around this subject for a while now, and it was only recently I became aware of the study I linked to earlier in this thread: Eating lots of fat is only really safe if you consciously ensure - by looking at ingredients, weighing things, etc - that you are getting very very few carbs indeed.

Im old enough to remember
1) when wholemeal bread was seen as very wierd then
2) was officially reccomended as healthier than white bread then
3) was seen as a possible cancer risk because of the fibre and wholegrain content so was bad for you then
4) was back in favour and officially reccomended again as better than other forms of bread due to being low GI and a better source of fibre
Call me picky, but I have very little faith in dietary guidelines whatever food they refer to and from whatever source. I prefer to go with what my body feels best on and what my sugars behave best with

 

[AdamJames]

Call me picky, but I have very little faith in dietary guidelines whatever food they refer to and from whatever source. I prefer to go with what my body feels best on and what my sugars behave best with

I certainly agreed with your earlier point about everyone being individual and one plan not suiting everyone. I'm surprised at how few other people seemed to agree with that!

It's something we forget all too often. I think humans, and I include myself in this, have a major failing in the way our brains work, and we always like to pick one option as the best, develop football crowd mentality, and support our "team" over all else. I include myself in that, but it's a problem I'm aware of in the way I think, and I try to fight it.

For example, most of us on this forum would agree that if we can take action to make our blood sugar lower, that's always a good thing. A lot of us, myself included, also like the idea of doing it naturally if we can, i.e. avoiding medication.

But as one member said a while ago, they were encouraged to hear one view that aiming for good blood sugar targets, while valid, was not necessarily the first thing to focus on when you look at the big picture and wanting to have a long and healthy life. For example stopping smoking was a bigger factor.

They were pleased to hear that, because they were in a situation where they couldn't afford to get their blood sugar as low as possible. Their health was such that they needed certain types of medication to deal with serious health issues, and that medication raised their blood sugar somewhat.

The inconvenient truth for our football-supporter-mentality brains, is that even if a certain approach can be shown to be better for a population at large, it could be worse, or not even possible, for certain individuals.

The reality is, some people need medication to have an improved quality of life, and a longer life. And that may be at the expense of higher blood sugars.

And some people with food intolerances will not be able to embrace a VLCHF way of eating. And some people will not be able to exercise.

I find any debate over studies and their relative merits to be interesting and helpful, and I listen to arguments on both sides with equal interest; the biggest way in which a debate 'goes wrong' is when one person tells another what's best for them, or confuses the sentences 'this is what worked for me' for 'this is what works'.

 

[Tannith]

Thank you for these thoughts. It is indeed a battle on many fronts, and my wife is also bi-polar and currently in maniic phase, so is herself now out to save the world. Glory Hallelujah!

I may be gone for some time........ She needs 24/7 care now, or more like 24/7 surveillance The trouble is that the mental health treatments are directly opposing the Parkinsons treatment and we have an extra juggling act to fine tune both for best effect.

I sympathise. I am bipolar myself though currently stable.

 

[jrw2007]

When lecturing on biochemistry to medics and physiological sciences students at the University of Oxford, Dr Garry Brown would start by stating that the human body runs primarily on fatty acids and not to believe that glucose is the primary fuel. The Krebs cycle uses fat through beta oxidation as well as glucose plus any other fuel floating around in the system. The only organ that must have glucose is the brain and that can be, I think, a minimum of about 15% of its fuel.

 

[Maggyanne1950]

Fat in your bloodstream, either from your own fat stores or from your diet can build up inside your muscle cells where it can create toxic breakdown products and free radicals that block the insulin signalling process. No matter how much insulin you produce, your fat compromised muscle cells can’t effectively use it.

This mechanism by which fat interferes with insulin function has been demonstrated by either infusing fat into people’s bloodstreams and watching insulin resistance shoot up, or by removing fat from people’s blood and seeing insulin resistance drop. We can now even visualise the fat in the muscles using MRI technology. Researchers are now able to track the fat going from the blood into the muscles and watch insulin resistance rise. One hit of fat and within 160 minutes the absorption of glucose into your cells becomes compromised.

Researchers don’t have to give the study subjects fat through an IV though. All they have to do is to feed them. Michael Greger “ How not to Die” – Diabetes.

I used to be overweight, so followed a low fat, low sugar diet down to a BMI of 24, only to discover that I had become pre-diabetic. Therefore I am inclined to think that this theory is not the answer.
I am on a training course for pre-diabetics at the moment. The MOMENTA instructor has just informed us that the presence of fat cells causes insulin resistance, yet technically speaking I am not overweight.
My pre-diabetes seems to coincide with a recurring knee injury, causing inactivity. So I am trying to be more active. Only time will tell if I am right.
I must say that what I read on this site sounds a lot more logical, ie the low carb approach. However, as a long term sufferer with constipation, I am reluctant to give up my high fibre muesli and rye bread. I follow this site with great interest.

 

[Bluetit1802]

The MOMENTA instructor has just informed us that the presence of fat cells causes insulin resistance, yet technically speaking I am not overweight.
My pre-diabetes seems to coincide with a recurring knee injury, causing inactivity. So I am trying to be more active. Only time will tell if I am right.
I must say that what I read on this site sounds a lot more logical, ie the low carb approach. However, as a long term sufferer with constipation, I am reluctant to give up my high fibre muesli and rye bread. I follow this site with great interest.

But you were overweight at one time? Insulin resistance and high circulating insulin levels (the fat carrying hormone) start a very long time before glucose levels reach the point of diagnosis, so it could have manifested itself a long time before you were diagnosed. Also a good proportion of T2 people are thin to begin with. They just happen to be fat on the inside where the fat can't be seen. You may also be fat on the inside even though you have lost your subcutaneous fat. (Fatty livers, and fat round the pancreas)

There is no need to be constipated on a low carb diet. I'm not. We can obtain plenty of fibre from seeds, nuts and other veggies. Fibre isn't restricted to breakfast cereals and bread. A serving or two of ground flax or chia seeds every day will sort you out.

 

[Maggyanne1950]

I will try those Bluetit, thank you. I also don't eat meat, eggs or dairy produce, so I am hoping not to have to give up anything else. I am allergic to dairy produce, eggs give me eczema and meat was causing rheumatoid arthritis, which I no longer have since I stopped eating it. Are there any low carb vegans and pescetorians?

 

[Bluetit1802]

Are there any low carb vegans and pescetorians?

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/category/vegetarian-diet-forum.71/

You will find plenty of them on this sub-forum