T2 or NAFLD? ...or, a funny thing happened on the way to the surgery

[Chris24Main]

To bring the conversation back on point, @Peanut234 was asking about insulin resistance and exercise. So - clearly if there is one thing we have to agree on, it's that insulin resistance is wildly complex, and that it's difficult to get to a point of agreement around it. I fear that much the same can be said about exercise; so the likelihood of agreeing on how exercise relates to insulin resistance is fairly small.

But - I'll have a go and see where the contention may be...

Firstly - to lay out my cards and biases - I've never really been much of a fan of exercise. I've always preferred doing stuff, than spending time in the gym. I had a big motorbike accident at 18, so running has just never been a thing for me. But - that isn't to say I've done nothing, I was a Jiu-Jitsu instructor for a good while, and I've kayaked to a high level, and currently I can be found two or three times a week paddleboarding, year round; even in January. I have a single piece of gym equipment at home, a decent elliptical, being the only kind of 'running' that doesn't stress the knee joints.

My view of exercise as it pertains to long term health was pretty much the received advice - calories in, calories out, 10,000 steps and as much cardio as you can. Big muscles are for poseurs.

Now - having gone through this journey we are on... my views have changed a bit.

The most obvious thing, and non-contentious, is that skeletal muscles (ie, the big, obvious ones) are both the biggest driver of metabolism, and the first place your body will store glucose (in the form of Glycogen) - so they are super critical; for dealing with diabetes, and for long term health.

The biggest danger we all face getting older, diabetes under control or not, is losing muscle; falling and losing mobility - that (statistically) is the big cliff-edge that people fall over as they get older. But - you need to do something about it before you fall over.

So - I would say that this divides into two distinct things -
For long term health, you need to be doing something that maintains a sense of balance, grip strength and leg strength and mobility.
For diabetes control, you need to be losing weight without loosing muscle. If possible, you want to be gaining muscle.

On top of this, if you enjoy cardio and running etc, do that as well (plenty of reasons some people like this, mental well-being the most obvious) - but for me, a little resistance training will go much further than cardio.

Beyond that, I think it's all about what works for you, build it into your life; find something you enjoy, don't make it one more thing you have to suffer.

How all of that relates to insulin resistance - well for me, there are lots of technical explanations, but again I would come back to Glycogen storage - if you fill it up, the body has to do something, and that will make dealing with new glucose more difficult (the least contentious way I can think of to describe one mechanism for insulin resistance) - so you need to periodically flush out that storage to stop it from overflowing.

We have talked about what that means for the liver, but you have double the storage of Glycogen in your skeletal muscles, so resistance exercise will drive those muscles to use their stores - whatever else you are doing on the diet side..

Lots of cardio will also - but lots - small amounts of resistance exercise is far more efficient, and easier to build into your day. Mainly it becomes about not sitting still for long periods.

As a side note, one unexpected effect of being obsessive about sugar and sleep, is that I can show some nights where I can track a blood glucose rise, in relation to periods of dreaming... that is interesting just in itself, but we shouldn't forget that the biggest metabolism driver is really the brain, and when we think about exercise, we should also think about keeping the mind active...

 

[Melgar]

I don't consider myself to be particularly knowledgeable about any of this, by the way, just trying to learn; and there really is a huge amount of new research on all of these topics... I suppose I'm just trying to distill all of it into something that makes so much obvious sense that I will believe it myself and continue to believe it (in other words, live by the conclusions) for the rest of my life.

But that video (Dr Robert Cywes, describes himself as the 'carb addiction doc' - I have a book written by him and Malcolm Kendrick among others to delve into next; but I like his no-nonsense approach) gets into the fundamental nature of insulin resistance and therefore the effect of blood glucose in Type 1, Type 2 and what he refers to as Obeso-genic people.

You may not see the connection, but for you with all the exercise you do, and blood glucose still going up, I think there may be some clues...

I suppose, to put my cards firmly on the table, I have some form in this. I consider myself a spiritual but not religious person. I'm fascinated by the need for spirituality we have as a species - that's just an undeniable thing... but any given single form of religion suffers from the comparison with any other single form of religion. So, there is that, but at the same time, most forms of religious practice are very similar in the fundamentals... so, for me... I kind of boil all of that down into.. look, if you focus on the things that all religions share, you end up with something we can all get behind, and you don't need to disregard any individual belief in order to do so... I kind of like the neatness of that way of thinking.

So - I have a systematic way of thinking - it's really what I do for a living as a particular type of engineer. So, over the last 5 years or so, I've been reading up on sleep, how the brain works, then of course, now on metabolism, how stress affects things, what sugar does, and insulin and insulin resistance, and of course the whole Statin question, and inflammation etc... and I'm trying to boil all of that down into something as simple, just because I can't stop myself from thinking that way, like a dog with a bone...

What I'm really curious about is ... is there any appetite for that, or is this just something I should do and keep my mouth shut?

ie, I've been very clear all along, whatever I'm doing here, I'm doing primarily for myself, but if I stepped beyond that; do I just come across as a ...what... know-it-all or worse, some kind of dangerous enthusiast.. or is there any worth in this for anyone else..?
Open question...

Hi @Chris24Main. Sorry for the late reply. I am back in Canada now, my brain is foggy from the time difference and, of course, the never ending tiredness, but I was able to listen to Dr Robert Cywes' video. I found it fascinating. I liked it his down to earth delivery. I will have to listen to it again to absorb what he is saying. My C-Peptides are around 0.58, a little lower than optimum. I'll have to engage my mind to figure out how I fit into his methodology. Thanks again for you informative response. Mel

 

[Chris24Main]

Something of a follow up post. I had a review yesterday with my GP.

Generally incredibly positive - we managed to navigate around the topic of Statins and supporting a Keto diet, and a bunch of other things very successfully in a way that avoided needing to argue, or have a situation where one of us had to accept we were wrong and the other was right.

I can now book myself on a three month rolling blood test, with the aim of declaring remission in about a year. Interestingly in the UK, you never really 'leave' the books as a diabetic, and I suppose this makes sense, because we can all falter, and in the absence of taking any medication, you could quickly find yourself in trouble. Also, there is some thought that by the time you are diagnosed, you could already have done lasting damage to several organs and systems, so I understand. Plus, it means I can have a yearly eye check, so I can't complain.

Medically, I'm not taking anything and am not wearing a CGM any more. The GP was happy to extend my prescription for Glucose level blood (prick) test strips so I can periodically chart my fasting levels, but could not offer Ketone test strips (which I expected). That, I think is fine. There is nothing like agreement that aiming for a balance of more Ketones for metabolic health is acceptable, good or advisable - they see Ketones purely in relation to Ketoacidosis and want to avoid. I know what I know, and I know what I've measured in my body, and I know how I feel doing what I'm currently doing (no sugar, no starch, no seed oil, fasting a full day at least one day a week, and then generally eating normally outside that, no calorie counting and cooking and eating more fat than I've been historically comfortable with) compared to calorie restriction - I feel much better, like it's not even close.. So, I don`t need to win an argument with anyone to maintain that.. so it's fine.

GP is also perfectly happy to support not taking any meds - so no Metformin, and no Statins. I'll do another set of serum lipids and I expect Trig levels to drop and LDL levels to rise (often seen with Keto or low carb diets) - and we talked about this; she said it may be a cause to look again at Statins, I said it was perfectly normal for this diet/ lifestyle, and is only a risk if you agree with the saturated fat hypothesis - if you see heart disease as the 'damage and repair' cycle being out of balance, then elevated LDL is not problem, and in fact low LDL is a big risk - surprisingly she actually agreed with this..

I even trotted out something I've just learned - 20% of your total body Cholesterol is in your brain, and not a single molecule of it came from diet, it's all made in the brain.. and more than that, Statins will cross into the brain and suppress Cholesterol production (cause that's what they do) - and what is it that the brain uses Cholesterol for ? well - you are back to cell boundaries, so Cholesterol becomes part of the communication network in the brain - literally the pathway for your thoughts - this is why one of the risks of Statins is brain function impairment.

Surprisingly again, we had a pleasant, if quite nerdy, conversation about that, and she pretty much agreed.. though couched it in terms of different Statins having different propensity to cross the blood/brain boundary and that we could find one that worked better for me..

Again - not an argument I need to win, so we left it - generally she agreed that that there was no strong case for me to take Satins, and I was happy with that.

Will post with the new blood test results (after a full 3 month of new diet regime) when I get them.

I stressed, because I thought, and genuinely feel; that even though I've argued and had quite tetchy sessions with the consultant, I feel deeply grateful to the diabetic team - they have saved my life, and the consultant I had most trouble with insisted on the test that tipped me from type 1 to type 2 diagnosis, and that put me on the 'right' path. So - I feel incredibly well looked after, and though I clearly don't agree with some of the underlying thought; I've been given the space to do what I can for myself with no resistance or lecturing.. (well, at least no more than I could cope with).

 

[Outlier]

Sounds like a win/win outcome, and I think you and your Dr. handled the session very amicably. Well done all round.

 

[Peanut234]

I was a bit surprised by the fact that muscles store fat, as mentioned in a previous post. I knew that muscles used fat, but I am not sure I have been explicitly told about them storing it. It totally helps explain how it is a factor in insulin resistance. I wonder if there is anyway of 'not having the pockets' - I suppose that is having bigger muscles that use more energy on the day to day activity.
I keep thinking of a cartoon character wearing a long coast with pockets on the inside, but instead of watches, there is 'fat'/blocks of butter in the cartoon...

I recently read about the brain and cholesterol too and was a bit blown away. Would you be able to dive into statins. I think you briefly mentioned them in an earlier post. And my dr mentioned them this week...I demurred, as I want to understand them better.

 

[Chris24Main]

Strictly speaking, skeletal muscles store Glycogen, in the same way as the Liver does- it's not quite fat, but kind of an intermediary - strings of glucose molecules, I think I've seen it described as, or the animal version of starch - lots of glucose is not good for animals or plants, and Plants bundle it up into starch, whereas Animals bundle it up into Glycogen. Then - take three fatty acid chains (pick a chain, any chain, saturated, unsaturated, anything will do) - and hang them on your Glycogen molecule, and you have a Triglyceride, and then you really are into lipid territory.

But, as I understand it, big muscles can store Glycogen - about twice what the liver can, then when the storage capacity is full, the liver starts to create Triglycerides, and packs them up into particles that can be transported around the bloodstream... and those are delivered to ... everywhere, including specific fat storage cells (adipose cells).

Whether, and how, muscles can use fat preferentially for energy is a deeper question - all of us with our elevated blood sugar really have to address that first otherwise the body will favour using glucose first. But - the important thing is that big muscles and the brain chew through a lot of energy... so if you are looking to build a lifestyle, you need to be thinking about using those big muscles (ie, resistance exercise rather than lots of cardio) and lot losing them.

But - it's endlessly fascinating just how complex and amazing the body is...

 

[Chris24Main]

on a totally different note, a thought that I've been mulling on for about a week...

I was offering something to my wife, paté, I think - and while she loves paté she asked that I didn't get it too often as 'it's very filling'... and she thinks of it as a treat.

Now, generally, my thinking on what is a treat and what is a staple has kind of flipped on it's head over this year - I'm tucking into thick double cream and bacon and nuts every day, all of which would have been treats previously, whereas I would have happily tucked into bread and pasta and grapes every day and never do now.

Anyway - this isn't about another lecture about the one true keto diet... it's more - 'have we confused the meaning of "filling"?'

I mean - I don't think when my wife was reacting to the thought of paté becoming a staple, she was dealing with the emotional or physical sensation of feeling full and sated - she was really saying - "I feel instinctively that this food will make me fat if I eat it often, and the proof of that is that sensation of feeling 'fat' when I eat it".

Ie, because we've had this drummed into us, we feel the natural, hormonally driven sensation of not needing to eat any more, because we've had enough (consumed fat) as something negative, and to be avoided, wheras the sense of having something like a Thai meal (which I love, by the way, of all of this, the idea of never having a good noodle meal is painful in the extreme) and immediately feeling like you could have another.. that is a positive thing because of how it makes you feel. You don't feel full, therefore it can't be making you fat, right?

... even though the actual result of the carb-heavy meal is both that it all gets turned into the worst fat, and you are much more likely to over-eat, or at least crave more.

 

[Chris24Main]

@Peanut234 - Statins.. so, nothing controversial then...?

There are several books that I would heavily recommend, many of them in the screenshot of my library somewhere above. But - there is clearly not a firm position on Statins that everyone agrees on. Statins are either widely positive, especially for diabetics and those with previous heart disease, and with such low risk, that nearly everyone should be taking them, or... on the other side of the fence; the benefits are much weaker than they are supposed, rely on a view of how heart disease works that is flawed, and that the risks are far greater, particularly for women.

For me, you have to almost forget statins first and think heart disease. (and I kind of wrap Diabetes up with this, because statistically most diabetics die of heart disease; that is factually true and at the same time meaningless because what is true for a population is not true for an individual).

So - the simple version - stuff attaches to the walls of your arteries, builds up; and either blocks those arteries, or breaks loose and causes damage in a downstream organ, be it heart, brain or lungs. This process is somewhat mysterious, inevitable, a result of modern life and getting older, and you can reduce your risk by taking these pills that reduce the stuff. Also; eat less of the stuff. (stuff being initially Cholesterol, but when that was immediately disproven, now described as eating saturated fat, leading to high levels of 'bad Colesterol' or LDL; which is the liver's particle for transporting Triglycerides and Cholesterol once most of the Triglycerides have been delivered).

Pretty straightforward, and compelling, particularly if the risks are low.

But - there is another competing version of what heart disease is. This one goes;

Again - the simple version - The mechanisms for repairing damage in the body and on the lining of the blood vessels are many and wondrous, but understandable if you have a lifetime to study them. If you can repair the damage quicker than you cause it (like a teenager who skins their knee) - everything is fine, the clot heals and you get on with your life. If you do too much damage too often - from smoking, having too much sugar in your blood, or stress, or your blood pressure is constantly high, you cannot keep up with the new damage (like, say, a teenager self-harming every night) and clots form over clots, and eventually you have a big problem.

In this hypothesis - which is not new, and people have been arguing over this since heart disease was a thing - Cholesterol, LDL - all of it is just a part of the clotting mechanism.

The analogy is maybe unsavoury, but deliberate, it's difficult to imagine a bleeding cut inside a blood vessel - but that is what is happening - one of the few ways you can have heart disease with no other factors, is sickle cell anaemia, where the blood cells literally rip into the cell lining of the artery.

If you are in serious danger of a big plaque rupturing and causing a stroke, there is almost universal agreement about what that plaque is composed of, just a huge gulf between the camps in how it formed. Unfortunately, where you start from affects almost every part of the medical view, what risk factors are involved, how these things should be studied and researched, and how the results should be interpreted (and that's without mentioning where the money comes from or goes to), and of course, whether a drug designed to reduce your LDL level can really be such a universal benefit.

So - what does that boil down to?

Well, there are definitely - definitely - people who will benefit from taking Statins.

There is a body of evidence that says the benefits of statins are exaggerated and the risks suppressed (this obviously is controversial, and while I clearly believe it to be true, it is just my opinion).

Cholesterol itself is kind of demonised, but is really a fundamental building block of life. Every part of your body needs Cholesterol, and most of it is made in the liver - you cannot eat as much as you need.

Statins earn vast sums of money for big pharma. (Companies should be able to make money, and R&D is not free, but; the amounts are pretty staggering). On a simple common sense basis, it's hard to imagine $15 billion a year not having an effect.

These same companies do miraculous work in all sorts of fields - I'm not pushing 'big pharma is evil'.

I think that's about the line I would creep up to, but go no further. I know I have an opinion about whether Statins are appropriate for me, but I think all I can do is lay out what I think the state of play is, and encourage you to find out more with an open mind, and decide for yourself, but be prepared to have a view to discuss with your doctor.

 

[Outlier]

I like your thoughtful conclusions and hypotheses. It's good that we all think rather than accept.

I get the statins conversation every year, despite the fact that a scan showed my arteries are clear. I am an old woman, so come under the aegis of research that shows women in general and older women in particular benefit from higher cholesterol levels. So I do think more research and a more flexible attitude (should we all have the blood measurements of a 30 year old athletic male?) would be worthwhile. But the pressures of one size fits all are strong.

 

[Chris24Main]

Another quick update - have the results of my latest blood test.
Headline - HbA1c is currently 36 mmol/mol

So - from Nov (50) under insulin, switching to Metformin in Jan, then Feb (41) going to no meds and regular fasting with high fat, low carb, zero sugar or starch, to 36 with a full three months of that regime.

triglyceride levels are fully half what they were in Nov at 1.0mmol/L and HDL slightly up - though the GP has been quick to point out that my LDL levels are "still up" though notes this is "as expected" - which I hope means "as we discussed, this kind of dietary regime is likely to elevate LDL, but that should not be concerning" as opposed to "as I was concerned, you still have high cholesterol, so need Statins" - I guess we'll see. She hasn't suggested doing anything other than review again after another three months, so I'm happy to give her the benefit of the doubt.

 

[TheSecretCarbAddict]

Well done, @Chris24Main! Some fantastic outcomes here and shows what can be done through targeted lifestyle changes. Reading about this makes me more determined than ever to push ahead with my changes and see if I can push my T2DM towards remission.

 

[Chris24Main]

Thanks @TheSecretCarbAddict - really appreciate that; for what it's worth, I'm quite a private person, I have zero social media footprint - I'm really fairly uncomfortable with looking like I'm pushing myself forward or thinking I'm special in any way, but I feel that this disease we have is as much about suppressed understanding and an orthodoxy that is both difficult to resist and making us unwell.. so if I can do anything by sticking my head over the parapet and maybe even demystifying some of the finer points - then I should do it.

 

[Chris24Main]

So, I had a really interesting insight the other day, and I just can't shake it. This is, to some extent, "the big one" and I don't want to sound like I'm trivialising, or spinning a new fad thought, this is based on science a hundred years old.

The simple version is that all Cancer is a form of metabolic disorder and is unnecessary.

Just let that stew a minute.
How to do the simple version of explaining that? - well, we've come to think that cancers are when the DNA of a cell goes wrong, for various reasons, and that triggers the cell to make copies, giving rise to the cancerous growth.
This turns out to simply not be a possible explanation. There are cancers with cells with unchanged DNA, and cancers with a range of damaged and undamaged cells. Plus - DNA simply does not make anything happen, it's information for other things to use. All of this is somewhat new understanding - the study of DNA has kind of overshadowed everything else, but we are starting to understand the mechanisms that use the information in the DNA.

In simple terms, this is why genetic twins can have different reactions to the same food (to pull it back to diet, for example).

So - if we look at the research around ageing - this is all about understanding the mechanisms that start off with the first viable life on the planet - the stuff that evolved a repair mechanism to kick in in times of famine (otherwise all life evolves, grows for a while in good times, then dies when it tries to keep growing in the absence of food). That initial protein interaction evolved into our modern immune system, and inflammatory response.

At a cellular level - then - it's one of the mitochondria's job to determine if the cell it's in is healthy enough to divide (ie, grow). If not (for many reasons) the cell my call for repair, or to be deconstructed and re-built as new, or even that it's finished its time - this is all part of the amazing systems that we all are.

If the mitochondria itself is damaged, however, the cell can go into a zombie state, and without control from the mitochondria, can divide unchecked, and create energy from fermenting glucose to do so. After enough of this, what you have is a cancerous growth.

It just cannot happen when you have healthy mitochondria. (again, all of this is now known, not opinion like it was 100 years ago - you can swap the cell nucleus from cancer cells to healthy cells, so that either healthy or zombie mitochondria are in charge, and the cells reverse) - so if your mitochondria are able to look after themselves, you cannot have the start of Cancer. That isn't like saying "if you don't do this you are less likely to have Cancer" - simply that Cancer just cannot happen - the risks are all about things that damage mitochondria - radiation, smoking, whatever...

If you don't have much glucose in your blood, there isn't enough to feed Cancer (Cancer cells use more glucose than healthy cells, because it's fermented - so uses something like 300 times as much glucose).

And what stops the process of repair to things like mitochondria - Insulin. What causes insulin to be present? Glucose.

(deliberately simplifying again.. the process of repair is really very complicated, but it does seem universally understood that when Insulin is in town, the body is in "good times" mode - back to that origin of life and ageing thing, so it prioritises storing energy and suppresses the whole bunch of things that should happen periodically to repair damage at a cellular level.)

Now - none of that is the really mind-bending thing. Say all of that is true - what I'm really saying is "we already know how to treat Cancer", we just prefer to live in a way that allows it to get hold, then grow... but it could all be stopped.

If all of that is true (and I've lost many, many close family members to Cancer, the very last thing I would want to do is make a joke about it) - and the science seems totally sound to me, and backed up by decades of data, and Nobel prizes.. if it's true, what would you do to protect your mitochondria?

What would you tell someone in order for them to protect their mitochondria?

What would you do when you do your best, and even your closest partner just glazes over like this is another long-winded thought experiment that has nothing to do with them?

But - you've just told them that you understand how to stop Cancer..
(or at least in theory.. living in a way that promotes good mitochondrial health is a little more complicated in practice...)

This is what has been burning me up, because I have to turn it round on myself - what would I do? What should I do...

 

[MrsA2]

What would you tell someone in order for them to protect their mitochondria?

What would you do when you do your best, and even your closest partner just glazes over like this is another long-winded thought experiment that has nothing to do with them?

But - you've just told them that you understand how to stop Cancer..
(or at least in theory.. living in a way that promotes good mitochondrial health is a little more complicated in practice...)

This is what has been burning me up, because I have to turn it round on myself - what would I do? What should I do...

Experience as shown me that you can do little to change others except live your life the way you want for you, effectively leading by example. In time, when the moment is right for them they may follow. The old "leading a horse to water" proverb.
We each had our own personal "light bulb momet" and all we can do is hope they have their's, and be ready with support and information when they ask for it.
Just my own humble opinion

 

[jpscloud]

So, I had a really interesting insight the other day, and I just can't shake it. This is, to some extent, "the big one" and I don't want to sound like I'm trivialising, or spinning a new fad thought, this is based on science a hundred years old.

The simple version is that all Cancer is a form of metabolic disorder and is unnecessary.

Just let that stew a minute.
How to do the simple version of explaining that? - well, we've come to think that cancers are when the DNA of a cell goes wrong, for various reasons, and that triggers the cell to make copies, giving rise to the cancerous growth.
This turns out to simply not be a possible explanation. There are cancers with cells with unchanged DNA, and cancers with a range of damaged and undamaged cells. Plus - DNA simply does not make anything happen, it's information for other things to use. All of this is somewhat new understanding - the study of DNA has kind of overshadowed everything else, but we are starting to understand the mechanisms that use the information in the DNA.

In simple terms, this is why genetic twins can have different reactions to the same food (to pull it back to diet, for example).

So - if we look at the research around ageing - this is all about understanding the mechanisms that start off with the first viable life on the planet - the stuff that evolved a repair mechanism to kick in in times of famine (otherwise all life evolves, grows for a while in good times, then dies when it tries to keep growing in the absence of food). That initial protein interaction evolved into our modern immune system, and inflammatory response.

At a cellular level - then - it's one of the mitochondria's job to determine if the cell it's in is healthy enough to divide (ie, grow). If not (for many reasons) the cell my call for repair, or to be deconstructed and re-built as new, or even that it's finished its time - this is all part of the amazing systems that we all are.

If the mitochondria itself is damaged, however, the cell can go into a zombie state, and without control from the mitochondria, can divide unchecked, and create energy from fermenting glucose to do so. After enough of this, what you have is a cancerous growth.

It just cannot happen when you have healthy mitochondria. (again, all of this is now known, not opinion like it was 100 years ago - you can swap the cell nucleus from cancer cells to healthy cells, so that either healthy or zombie mitochondria are in charge, and the cells reverse) - so if your mitochondria are able to look after themselves, you cannot have the start of Cancer. That isn't like saying "if you don't do this you are less likely to have Cancer" - simply that Cancer just cannot happen - the risks are all about things that damage mitochondria - radiation, smoking, whatever...

If you don't have much glucose in your blood, there isn't enough to feed Cancer (Cancer cells use more glucose than healthy cells, because it's fermented - so uses something like 300 times as much glucose).

And what stops the process of repair to things like mitochondria - Insulin. What causes insulin to be present? Glucose.

(deliberately simplifying again.. the process of repair is really very complicated, but it does seem universally understood that when Insulin is in town, the body is in "good times" mode - back to that origin of life and ageing thing, so it prioritises storing energy and suppresses the whole bunch of things that should happen periodically to repair damage at a cellular level.)

Now - none of that is the really mind-bending thing. Say all of that is true - what I'm really saying is "we already know how to treat Cancer", we just prefer to live in a way that allows it to get hold, then grow... but it could all be stopped.

If all of that is true (and I've lost many, many close family members to Cancer, the very last thing I would want to do is make a joke about it) - and the science seems totally sound to me, and backed up by decades of data, and Nobel prizes.. if it's true, what would you do to protect your mitochondria?

What would you tell someone in order for them to protect their mitochondria?

What would you do when you do your best, and even your closest partner just glazes over like this is another long-winded thought experiment that has nothing to do with them?

But - you've just told them that you understand how to stop Cancer..
(or at least in theory.. living in a way that promotes good mitochondrial health is a little more complicated in practice...)

This is what has been burning me up, because I have to turn it round on myself - what would I do? What should I do...

Interesting thoughts popping up for me while reading this - I have no doubt this is true, but Big Food and Big Pharma have vested interests in the status quo. As if giving up carbs were not hard enough, we're deliberately tempted and seduced at every turn! I will keep trying.

 

[Outlier]

I use that as a positive - I will not do what these agencies want to seduce me into doing because I won't co-operate with whatever makes them profit and negatively impacts my health.