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

Mitochondria

mazza 2

Well-Known Member
Messages
248
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
I've just found this research on here called mitochondria. It states the following:

The researchers found instead that energy from glucose was not driving chronic inflammation, but rather it was a combination of defects in mitochondria and an increase in fat derivatives that were responsible.

"Our data provide an explanation for why people with tight glucose control can nonetheless have disease progression."

If this is true surely even with good glucose control they are suggesting it is a progressive disease regardless. Am I reading this right as it's pretty depressing as from what I've read from people like Jason Fung if you keep good glucose control it will prevent future complications. Thanks for reading.
 
I think the key word there is "can" some people with the specific mitochondrial form will be progressive- others with different genetic makeup won't.
 
Hi
Can you send the link to the research as it is hard to understand on what basis they are drawing such a conclusion. Their conclusion would in any case be a hypothesis that is unproven.
Re tight control not reducing disease progression that may refer to those studies done 10 years ago (Accord etc.) wherein diabetics who were tightly controlled with drugs/insulin did not reduce their disease and did just as badly as type 2s who were less rigorous with their bgs i.e. same rates of macro vessel damage.
What Jason Fung is reall6y saying is that both insulin and gluscose must be tightly controlled to stop diabetes progressing and that this can only be done by restricting carbs or fasting or bariatric surgery.
 

Hi Mazza, I would say that by keeping your glucose levels as close to normal as you can massively minimises any progression. In the end just about ANYONE can suffer from some 'defect', diabetic or not. I really don't think we can avoid every last little thing as we are only human. One thing I do know, a well controlled diabetic MUST be in a far healthier position than your average non diabetic. x
 

I'm not sure how to send links but the information is on the home page on this website. I personally think it is a must to keep blood glucose levels in check if only to be healthier now, as high blood glucose levels affect your quality of life now. I have the book by Jason Fung which is informative but I find it doesn't address certain issues, for instance, there isn't much about normal weight people who get diabetes. I was normal weight and since diagnosis been on a LCHF diet. I'm now underweight and still not achieved non-diabetic HbA1c levels, it was 45 last check. Infact, for the last couple of weeks I've had readings in the 9's and 10's and I haven't changed my diet or anything, so not sure why it's happened. Still, I might try some fasting but not too sur eas I'm a little underweight. Thanks for the reply.
 
Diakat said:
I think the key word there is "can" some people with the specific mitochondrial form will be progressive- others with different genetic makeup won't.
Click to expand...
Probably true, but how do you know if you have that genetic make-up? I suppose time will tell. Thanks
 
https://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/201...inflammation-in-type-2-diabetes-91862046.html

Here’s the link for anyone that needs it.

I don’t know if “disease progression” and complications are one and the same. Progression may just mean more meds over time? I don’t know.

Regardless, I hope no doctor is saying there is a level under which one is GUARANTEED not to get complications. Poor control is a clear risk factor, but non-diabetics can and do get all the same complications- just obviously at a lower rate.
 
Hi Mazza,
I am having my first post official diagnosis Hba1c blood test next Tuesday,. I was not quite in 'normal BMI' range just 1kg over when diagnosed. I am not on diabetes medication and don't expect to be since according to my meter my BG levels are well controlled on my LCHF lifestyle (I don't call it a diet since there is no calorie restriction). I was surprised how much weight I have been losing, but have lost 21lbs since April 2019 or just over 10% of my maximum weight.

I agree Diakat and others that the word 'can' is very important in that headline. We can only control what we can control (or measure). The vast majority of Doctors still think that T2 D is a universally progressive disease, and for them it is - chiefly because of how they treat it!

We are all different and different foods affect is slightly differently, but I can understand your frustration with your Hba1c and your recent high BG meter readings. However stress, infection, lack of sleep and many other things affect BG levels and an Hba1c of 45 is very good indeed considering that the disease is supposedly progressive! Indeed with such a level I am surprised that you are still on Metformin (perhaps you aren't and have just not updated your information).

Whether you can tweak your lifestyle to reduce the Hba1c below 40 or not, and whether it is worth it, is a personal choice for you to decide.
I have been saying that I am using LCHF with some IF once or twice a week, but apparently Dr Peter Attia (and possibly Dr Jason Fung) appear to call that 16:8 that I do 'Restricted Time Feeding' RTF instead and only something over 24hrs to him qualifies as a 'Fast'.
 
Thanks for your reply. It's true that we can only control what we can and hopefully that will be enough. It's just the article made it sound that it's not just a matter of controlling blood glucose to keep complications at bay. I read it as once you have diabetes it may have caused something else to change in your body and therefore that is what will cause progression and complications. It's probably the way I interrupted the article.
As for the metformin, I asked if I could reduce them and was told absolutely "Not". I'm still on 4 of 500mg per day. I'm hoping to reduce them at my next review if December if my A1c is still in pre-diabetic range. I'm thinking my sugar levels could be a little screwed up as I stopped smoking 11 weeks ago. I'm now vaping, but it's not been easy. Although as I said it's only been higher for the last couple of weeks. Still, it's got to be better than smoking. Thanks
 
Surely even none diabetics hv this inflammation causation?
If not why are we just finding this now?

Inflammation can be from being obese or genetical.
Some say even pollution is the cause.
 
Yesterday I heard a Peter Attia podcast with Jason Fung who mentioned that the HBa1c and BG figures used in Canada are higher (in some cases) than those used in the USA. So I got curious and asked Dr Google.
You may be interested in this:

What is a normal a1c level in Canada?
DiabetesCanada(formerly the Canadian Diabetes Association) suggests the following A1cand blood glucose ranges as a general guide. Blood glucose: Fasting and before meals: 4.0 to 7.0 millimoles per litre (mmol/L) 2 hours after meals: 5.0 to 10.0 mmol/L or 5.0 to 8.0 mmol/L if A1ctargets are not being met.
 
Last edited:

So, they are saying sugar is not a problem... wow, who paid for this?

T2's can have disease progression if they are taking insulin and are already insulin resistant, that makes it worse, but where are the details on the T2's they claim have tight control? That sounds like tight control via use of insulin and possibly poor diet control.

So, glucose doesn't play a roll in chronic inflammation, which sounds ridiculous to me. This goes against the success of people who have lowered their intake of carbs/sugar/fructose etc and produced outstanding results right across their blood work.

Sugar produces a toxic metabolite called Methylglyoxal which are present in elevated levels in T2, which is believed to cause insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, obesitity. Perhaps they are ignoring the detrimental roll of glucose?

Professor Robert Lustig talks about it in a podcast with Ivor Cummins. About the 32 min mark.

 
I love this quote from the video above (Fat Emperor and Robert Lustig)
"Fat is not fat, Sugar is not sugar and a Calorie is not a calorie!"
 
I don’t see the study saying sugar is not a problem. What I read is you can get glucose under control, but if you still don’t metabolize fat efficiency, then inflammation is still present and thus so is IR and the resulting “disease progression.”

I think it’s been identified for quite some time that lipid levels somehow play a role in IR, we just don’t know much yet about which lipids, and the mechanism by which they cause problems.

It would be one piece of the puzzle for me. My lipids all went from “borderline” to “ideal” very quickly and my IR, measured by HOMA IR vanished. Last rest TC: 123 (3.2), LDL 52 (1.37), HDL 57 (1.5) and trigs 70 (.80). All unmedicated, btw.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...te_Th17_Inflammation_in_Human_Type_2_Diabetes
 
Last edited:
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.…