Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

The Diet Delusion and Insulin as an atherogenic hormone

  • 23-09-2009 09:56PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭


    Hiya just about half way through Gary Taubbes new book the Diet delusion and my head is reeling! Just wondering what thoughts other people have on the book or the low sat-fat and cholesterol theory versus the insulin/blood glucose theories (regarding heart disease, diabetes, cancer etc?)


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,775 ✭✭✭EileenG


    I think this book should be compulsary reading. Even if you are not a fan of low carb diets, the amount of research he had done is mind boggling. The last 200 pages of the book are references.

    Once you stop assuming that the "fat causes heart disease" theory is gospel, you'll find lots of other research that backs up with Taubes says.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭lizzyvera


    Can you elaborate on his research here? Does he factor in that diabetes causes heart disease? That could be taken two ways, depending on what spin he wants to put on it- that diabetes caused by too much sugar contributes significantly to heart disease, or he could directly correlate sugar with heart disease, which isn't exactly accurate.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    The diet delusion is probably my favourite book of all time, it got me interested in the science of nutrition and lead me to return to college to study medical science, so I have a lot to thank Mr. Taubes for!

    It is really dense and quite jaw-dropping in parts, I love the section where he explains how you don't get fat because you eat too much, you're eating too much because you're getting fat. That took a while to get my head around!!

    To go through every single paper on obesity and heart disease AND follow up on all the references is a mammoth task but it's still a really enjoyable read.

    Lizzyvera, he goes extensively into the pathology of diabetes and heart disease and how they are related. For example did you know that 75% of people who have suffered a heart attack have normal cholesterol, but 90% of people who have had a heart attack have abnormal blood-sugar?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Sapsorrow


    EileenG wrote: »
    I think this book should be compulsary reading. Even if you are not a fan of low carb diets, the amount of research he had done is mind boggling.

    Note that most of the research he cites is indicating refined carbs and sucrose (and sometimes fructose) as the culprit not necessarily complex carbs though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    For example did you know that 75% of people who have suffered a heart attack have normal cholesterol, but 90% of people who have had a heart attack have abnormal blood-sugar?

    God damn....that's some statistic.

    edit: Currently reading The optimum nutrition bible and then I'm gonna give "Protein Power" a read but I think that this'll be next after that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Sapsorrow


    Khannie wrote: »
    God damn....that's some statistic.

    edit: Currently reading The optimum nutrition bible and then I'm gonna give "Protein Power" a read but I think that this'll be next after that.

    Have to say I'm really not a holford fan I think he's a complete scoundral. I went to one of his 'seminars' in my university a year or two back and it was just a promotional tour for his nutritional supplements which he had had the foresight to bring with with him to sell at the break. It was completely geared to scare the audience into thinking they absolutely needed every supplement under the sun to simply stay alive and so it turned into a cattle mart in the end with everyone scrabbling to buy his merchandise. All he discussed all evening was how vital supplements were to even reasonable health which for a start simply isnt true and secondly isn't why you pay money to go and hear a 'nutritionist' speak.
    It cost me fourty odd euro just for him to sell me his pills it was crazy I was so dissillusioned by the end. He's just another Gillian McKeith only in it for the money and for that reason can't be trusted to supply unbiased information for the greater good, beware I say!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,775 ✭✭✭EileenG


    Note that most of the research he cites is indicating refined carbs and sucrose (and sometimes fructose) as the culprit not necessarily complex carbs though.

    True. But how many people actually eat complex carbs? Most people think Cheerios are a good wholegrain carb.

    I know lots of people who bang on about the virtues of wholegrains but are lucky if they eat three portions of real whole grains a week.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Have to say I'm really not a holford fan I think he's a complete scoundral. I went to one of his 'seminars' in my university a year or two back and it was just a promotional tour for his nutritional supplements which he had had the foresight to bring with with him to sell at the break. It was completely geared to scare the audience into thinking they absolutely needed every supplement under the sun to simply stay alive and so it turned into a cattle mart in the end with everyone scrabbling to buy his merchandise. All he discussed all evening was how vital supplements were to even reasonable health which for a start simply isnt true and secondly isn't why you pay money to go and hear a 'nutritionist' speak.
    It cost me fourty odd euro just for him to sell me his pills it was crazy I was so dissillusioned by the end. He's just another Gillian McKeith only in it for the money and for that reason can't be trusted to supply unbiased information for the greater good, beware I say!

    I have to agree, I've read his book and he seems like a bit of a charlatan, his scientific references are iffy too.

    Regarding the Diet Delusion, although most of the research on chronic disease and diet that he cites is based on refined carbohydrate, that's because there wasn't that much research on low carb diets available when he was writing the book, but what there is he does refer to. I think the general hypothesis proposed is that the replacement of fat in the diet with refined carbohydrate has caused an increase of the 'diseases of civilisation' and that low carb diets can be an effective clinical treatment for those diseases.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    I have to agree, I've read his book and he seems like a bit of a charlatan, his scientific references are iffy too.

    You get that impression about the references as you're reading the book (that he uses what he wants to suit himself) but as a read I think it's fairly informative. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a charlatan based on the book alone, but that seminar experience would have annoyed the crap out of me I have to say


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    I dont believe that good / complex carbs will cause excess weight gain for most people. IMO the major problem is not carbs OR fats but rather the combination of both! The combination of refined carbohydrate and any type of fat is deadly for weight gain because the body will store more fat if insulin levels are high at the time fat is consumed ... that doesnt mean I would avoid salmon and brocolli at the same meal but having white toast with loads of butter would be off the menu ...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Sapsorrow


    EileenG wrote: »
    True. But how many people actually eat complex carbs? Most people think Cheerios are a good wholegrain carb.

    I know lots of people who bang on about the virtues of wholegrains but are lucky if they eat three portions of real whole grains a week.

    Lol ya I know what you mean I saw a lot of that doing fieldwork this summer. I myself love wholegrains and am at the stage where I physically can't cope with anything refined even one dose of white bread messes me up!
    One thing I was thinking though about the book is that while he is condeming the single mindedness of both researchers and public health nutritionists in the book I can't help but feel he is contradicting himself when the book start sveering towards the evidence linking insulin sugar or whatever to the various major diseases.
    He is proposing a hypothesis based on the notion that biochemical processes within the body can be explained based simply on what we know of physiology which is exactly what happened with the low sat fat/cholesterol thing. They just went uh well we know cholesterol's associated with heart disease in different poulation subgroups and it's found in plaque deposits and used reverse engineering to come up with the idea that the relationship was causative. He himself seems to be doing the same thing with his hypothesis!
    I personally think we need to get away from the idea of a single causative factor as the holy grail in research as these diseases are characterized by the fact that they are multi-factoral.Yet researchers can't seem to help trying to find a single factor on which to pinpoint it all. It may be convenient for them to design studies this way but it's totally blind sighted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Lol ya I know what you mean I saw a lot of that doing fieldwork this summer. I myself love wholegrains and am at the stage where I physically can't cope with anything refined even one dose of white bread messes me up!
    One thing I was thinking though about the book is that while he is condeming the single mindedness of both researchers and public health nutritionists in the book I can't help but feel he is contradicting himself when the book start sveering towards the evidence linking insulin sugar or whatever to the various major diseases.
    He is proposing a hypothesis based on the notion that biochemical processes within the body can be explained based simply on what we know of physiology which is exactly what happened with the low sat fat/cholesterol thing. They just went uh well we know cholesterol's associated with heart disease in different poulation subgroups and it's found in plaque deposits and used reverse engineering to come up with the idea that the relationship was causative. He himself seems to be doing the same thing with his hypothesis!
    I personally think we need to get away from the idea of a single causative factor as the holy grail in research as these diseases are characterized by the fact that they are multi-factoral.Yet researchers can't seem to help trying to find a single factor on which to pinpoint it all. It may be convenient for them to design studies this way but it's totally blind sighted.

    I think what you imply re the multiple factors for illness has hit the nail on the head! It can be very difficult to determine whether it was cholesterol, blood sugar, obesity, lack of physical activity etc that was the root cause of a heart attack or other illness .. unfortunately it is an all or nothing situation with most people (few exceptions obviously) e.g. if somebody is overweight then there is a good chance they also neglect to check cholesterol, or take regular exercise, or have their blood sugars checked or eat healthily most of the time


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 119 ✭✭callig


    corkcomp wrote: »
    The combination of refined carbohydrate and any type of fat is deadly for weight gain .

    Hi

    What if you combine complex carbs (wholegrain oats) with good fats ( nuts, seeds, etc)

    Is that a bad idea?

    thx


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    corkcomp wrote: »
    I think what you imply re the multiple factors for illness has hit the nail on the head! It can be very difficult to determine whether it was cholesterol, blood sugar, obesity, lack of physical activity etc that was the root cause of a heart attack or other illness .. unfortunately it is an all or nothing situation with most people (few exceptions obviously) e.g. if somebody is overweight then there is a good chance they also neglect to check cholesterol, or take regular exercise, or have their blood sugars checked or eat healthily most of the time

    Actually, my area of research in college is on the pathology of heart disease, while you're correct in saying there are multiple risk factors, they do have a precedence, smoking and stress certainly contribute but by a wide wide margin the biggest one is diet. Some populations that eat a traditional diet have zero incidence of arterial plaque despite smoking unfiltered tobacco all the day.

    Read up on the Kitavans, interesting bunch of people, diet composed of 70% high-glycemic sweet potato, smoke like troopers but very little diabetes, cancer etc.

    The more and more I research, the more I realise that macronutrient ratio is important when trying to lose weight but not really a factor in getting heart disease. Sugar (including fructose) vegetable oils and wheat seem to be the biggest offenders, once these are eliminated, every possible blood level we can measure improves.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Lol ya I know what you mean I saw a lot of that doing fieldwork this summer. I myself love wholegrains and am at the stage where I physically can't cope with anything refined even one dose of white bread messes me up!
    One thing I was thinking though about the book is that while he is condeming the single mindedness of both researchers and public health nutritionists in the book I can't help but feel he is contradicting himself when the book start sveering towards the evidence linking insulin sugar or whatever to the various major diseases.
    He is proposing a hypothesis based on the notion that biochemical processes within the body can be explained based simply on what we know of physiology which is exactly what happened with the low sat fat/cholesterol thing. They just went uh well we know cholesterol's associated with heart disease in different poulation subgroups and it's found in plaque deposits and used reverse engineering to come up with the idea that the relationship was causative. He himself seems to be doing the same thing with his hypothesis!
    I personally think we need to get away from the idea of a single causative factor as the holy grail in research as these diseases are characterized by the fact that they are multi-factoral.Yet researchers can't seem to help trying to find a single factor on which to pinpoint it all. It may be convenient for them to design studies this way but it's totally blind sighted.

    Did you read the prologue? He's not saying he has all the answers or that even what he proposes is correct, just that more well designed long term studies need to be carried out to investigate the alternative hypothesis as there is preliminary evidence to suggest it might be a valuable avenue of research. Lord knows we've tested the hell out of the lipid hypothesis and it has always come up wanting. We have all been the unwitting participants in an experiment on the general population to replace fat in the diet with carbohydrate (namely grains) and what happened? Rates of heart-disease are increasing and type II diabetes is reaching an epidemic level.

    Plus the fact that low carb diets can actually measurably reverse heart disease, makes you think it must be something that a low carb diet eliminates that is causing the problem in the first place.

    Edited to say: Epilogue, I meant epilogue, *yawn* the word selection part of my brain appears to need more than 4 hours sleep. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Actually, my area of research in college is on the pathology of heart disease, while you're correct in saying there are multiple risk factors, they do have a precedence, smoking and stress certainly contribute but by a wide wide margin the biggest one is diet. Some populations that eat a traditional diet have zero incidence of arterial plaque despite smoking unfiltered tobacco all the day.

    Read up on the Kitavans, interesting bunch of people, diet composed of 70% high-glycemic sweet potato, smoke like troopers but very little diabetes, cancer etc.

    The more and more I research, the more I realise that macronutrient ratio is important when trying to lose weight but not really a factor in getting heart disease. Sugar (including fructose) vegetable oils and wheat seem to be the biggest offenders, once these are eliminated, every possible blood level we can measure improves.

    im not sure why you quoted my post in the reply above, because it doesnt really have any relevance to the point I was making! I was not intending to discuss the differing risk factors, nor which risk factors are more or less likely to cause illness - my point was simply that in many cases, when people tend to neglect one area of health, then they are more likely to neglect other areas also ... e.g. how likely is it that somebody who works out several times every week will smoke (because it will seriously impede their workout) or eat crap (because it will prevent that 6 pack no matter how much they work out) - often people end up having several risk factors at once such as over weight, high cholesterol and blood sugars and lack of exercise ...


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    corkcomp wrote: »
    im not sure why you quoted my post in the reply above, because it doesnt really have any relevance to the point I was making! I was not intending to discuss the differing risk factors, nor which risk factors are more or less likely to cause illness - my point was simply that in many cases, when people tend to neglect one area of health, then they are more likely to neglect other areas also ... e.g. how likely is it that somebody who works out several times every week will smoke (because it will seriously impede their workout) or eat crap (because it will prevent that 6 pack no matter how much they work out) - often people end up having several risk factors at once such as over weight, high cholesterol and blood sugars and lack of exercise ...

    Sorry if I wasn't clear in my point, I was agreeing with you but just saying that as multiple risk factors go, diet leaves everything else in the dust. Plus I personally think that being overweight, having disordered blood sugar and no energy to exercise all have the same cause, which is why we often see them side by side.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Sorry if I wasn't clear in my point, I was agreeing with you but just saying that as multiple risk factors go, diet leaves everything else in the dust. Plus I personally think that being overweight, having disordered blood sugar and no energy to exercise all have the same cause, which is why we often see them side by side.

    not necessarily ... having a poor diet might make very little difference IF blood sugar, cholesterol, weight and activity levels were all good, but I agree diet is crucial in most cases ... I see exactly what you are hinting at with regard to being over weight and having blood sugar issues (it is worth noting that many overweight people have perfectly normal blood sugar levels and are simply consuming TOO MUCH FOOD) ... i would say that it is often down to the person themselves being ignorant, lazy or thinking they wont get ill (or a combination of all three). Personally, I can say i put on a serious lot of weight in college, mainly thru crap deli food and lack of exercise, I knew i was getting into an unhealthy weight range, i knew i was not exercising enough, I knew smoking was VERY dangerous but TBH i didnt give a **** at the time and i reckon that is the issue with a lot of people (they dont really care)


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    corkcomp wrote: »
    not necessarily ... having a poor diet might make very little difference IF blood sugar, cholesterol, weight and activity levels were all good, but I agree diet is crucial in most cases ... I see exactly what you are hinting at with regard to being over weight and having blood sugar issues (it is worth noting that many overweight people have perfectly normal blood sugar levels and are simply consuming TOO MUCH FOOD) ... i would say that it is often down to the person themselves being ignorant, lazy or thinking they wont get ill (or a combination of all three). Personally, I can say i put on a serious lot of weight in college, mainly thru crap deli food and lack of exercise, I knew i was getting into an unhealthy weight range, i knew i was not exercising enough, I knew smoking was VERY dangerous but TBH i didnt give a **** at the time and i reckon that is the issue with a lot of people (they dont really care)

    Regarding some people being overweight but have perfect blood sugar, they exist (and are rare!) but they still became overweight the same way everyone else does, through increased insulin. That is the way the body stores calories and we all have the same basic physiology last time I checked.

    You can't raise insulin to a level where fat storage occurs unless you raise blood sugar and you can't raise blood sugar without carbohydrate. This has never been controversial. We are not simple diesel engines.

    I am currently studying metabolic pathways and one thing that's obvious from the sheer complexity of the feedback messages is that food intake is far too important to be left up to the conscious mind. When animals in the wild eating their natural diet have access to excess food they don't get fat, they breed and increase in number. In fact the only way to make an animal fat is to feed it a food that it hasn't adapted to eating.

    Obesity is on the increase and it's not because we suddenly all became fat and lazy in a generation, look at poor people in mexico, you'll see staggering rates of obesity despite the fact that these people carry out hard physical labour on a daily basis. And as regards being ignorant, we were far more ignorant of any nutritional science one hundred years ago, you can't move for the amount of government initiatives educating us on a 'balanced' diet.

    The fact is that when insulin is high, no fatty acids can be liberated from storage, so if you have chronically high insulin your tissues are starving on a cellular level despite having an abundance of stored energy. This sends constant messages to the brain to consume more energy. This is why obese people have no energy, not that they are lazy.

    You really need to open your mind and read the diet delusion. Then you'd see that the energy balance theory is a very simplistic theory that completely ignores how our body actually works.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Regarding some people being overweight but have perfect blood sugar, they exist (and are rare!) but they still became overweight the same way everyone else does, through increased insulin. That is the way the body stores calories and we all have the same basic physiology last time I checked.

    You can't raise insulin to a level where fat storage occurs unless you raise blood sugar and you can't raise blood sugar without carbohydrate. This has never been controversial. We are not simple diesel engines.

    I am currently studying metabolic pathways and one thing that's obvious from the sheer complexity of the feedback messages is that food intake is far too important to be left up to the conscious mind. When animals in the wild eating their natural diet have access to excess food they don't get fat, they breed and increase in number. In fact the only way to make an animal fat is to feed it a food that it hasn't adapted to eating.

    Obesity is on the increase and it's not because we suddenly all became fat and lazy in a generation, look at poor people in mexico, you'll see staggering rates of obesity despite the fact that these people carry out hard physical labour on a daily basis. And as regards being ignorant, we were far more ignorant of any nutritional science one hundred years ago, you can't move for the amount of government initiatives educating us on a 'balanced' diet.

    The fact is that when insulin is high, no fatty acids can be liberated from storage, so if you have chronically high insulin your tissues are starving on a cellular level despite having an abundance of stored energy. This sends constant messages to the brain to consume more energy. This is why obese people have no energy, not that they are lazy.

    You really need to open your mind and read the diet delusion. Then you'd see that the energy balance theory is a very simplistic theory that completely ignores how our body actually works.

    Are you just saying that or do you know it for a fact? I know several people who are over weight and they all have normal blood sugar levels ...

    of course raised insulin is required to store fat, yes?

    totally false re animals needing to be fed certain food stuffs to get fat .. it is common enough in farming to raise cattle for slaughter on grass alone .. perhaps the animals in the wild staying lean may have something to do with the fact they are free to move around all day??

    IMO obesity is on the rise for a huge number of reasons - lack of physical activity, people consuming convenience foods, too much sugar, too much bad fat, too many calories! false advertising (especially of convenience foods) etc etc
    I wouldnt take much notice of the government messages, its the same as all the anti smoking ads and campains - as a former smoker I can honestly say all those pictures of clogged lungs and warnings on cig packets etc didnt ever stop me smoking, it was something that clicked within myself that dictated that and i believe its the same with poor diet and lifestyle choices - the person must WANT to change, all the ads in the world wont help otherwise ...

    thats true regarding the insulin but a lot of obese people are lazy, there is no point telling it any different ... it is also a HELL of a lot harder to carry around 15 stone vs say 11 stone so the heavier you get the more difficult exercise becomes


  • Advertisement
  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    corkcomp wrote: »
    Are you just saying that or do you know it for a fact? I know several people who are over weight and they all have normal blood sugar levels ...

    of course raised insulin is required to store fat, yes?

    totally false re animals needing to be fed certain food stuffs to get fat .. it is common enough in farming to raise cattle for slaughter on grass alone .. perhaps the animals in the wild staying lean may have something to do with the fact they are free to move around all day??

    IMO obesity is on the rise for a huge number of reasons - lack of physical activity, people consuming convenience foods, too much sugar, too much bad fat, too many calories! false advertising (especially of convenience foods) etc etc
    I wouldnt take much notice of the government messages, its the same as all the anti smoking ads and campains - as a former smoker I can honestly say all those pictures of clogged lungs and warnings on cig packets etc didnt ever stop me smoking, it was something that clicked within myself that dictated that and i believe its the same with poor diet and lifestyle choices - the person must WANT to change, all the ads in the world wont help otherwise ...

    thats true regarding the insulin but a lot of obese people are lazy, there is no point telling it any different ... it is also a HELL of a lot harder to carry around 15 stone vs say 11 stone so the heavier you get the more difficult exercise becomes

    Cattle are often 'finished' on grains before slaughter to up their weight, rare enough would you ever get a completely grass fed cow.

    It's actually completely true that you can't make a wild animal fat consuming it's normal diet, if you have evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.

    Wild animals don't get obesity or diabetes or cancer. Domesticated animals fed an unnatural diet by humans do. The natural diet of any species means that the hunger centre of the brain acts exactly as millions of years of evolution designed it to and overeating just doesn't occur.

    Do you know the H1ac levels of a lot of people then? If their levels are normal it must mean that their pancreas can pump out enough insulin to keep blood sugar normal, but if they're obese, that's a lot of insulin and eventually they will become insulin resistant and have all the attendant health issues of metabolic syndrome.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Cattle are often 'finished' on grains before slaughter to up their weight, rare enough would you ever get a completely grass fed cow.

    It's actually completely true that you can't make a wild animal fat consuming it's normal diet, if you have evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.

    Wild animals don't get obesity or diabetes or cancer. Domesticated animals fed an unnatural diet by humans do. The natural diet of any species means that the hunger centre of the brain acts exactly as millions of years of evolution designed it to and overeating just doesn't occur.

    Do you know the H1ac levels of a lot of people then? If their levels are normal it must mean that their pancreas can pump out enough insulin to keep blood sugar normal, but if they're obese, that's a lot of insulin and eventually they will become insulin resistant and have all the attendant health issues of metabolic syndrome.

    there is no point getting into the whole debate of what cattle are fed on unless you are speaking from experience or factual information - cattle are often fattenened on grass...

    you are going off on a tangent with the wild vs domesticated animal point - my only point was that IMO the illness and obesity of farmed and domesticated animals is often down to lack of activity e.g. cow locked up in a shed or dog or cat kept in a small living room all day - of course being out of their natural habitat, lack of air and sunshine and little physical activity would cause problems ...


    not all obese people develop metabolic saydrome - in fact metabolic syndrone is as much to do with cholesterol as it is blood sugar and insulin resistance ...


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    corkcomp wrote: »
    not all obese people develop metabolic saydrome - in fact metabolic syndrone is as much to do with cholesterol as it is blood sugar and insulin resistance ...

    This is news to me! Please elaborate..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    This is news to me! Please elaborate..

    google is your friend :D

    metabolic syndrome is normally defined as having about 3 out of 6 symptoms .. central obesity, high BP and low HDL would count as metabolic syndrome without any reference to blood sugar or insulin resistance - hope this has enlightened you somewhat!


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Actually, the world health organisation requires impaired glucose tolerance as a symptom to diagnose metabolic syndrome. Low HDL is a weak diagnostic marker so it's quite wrong to say that it has as much to do with cholesterol as blood sugar. Blood sugar is the predominant factor in met syndrome, HDL is ancillary at best.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Actually, the world health organisation requires impaired glucose tolerance as a symptom to diagnose metabolic syndrome. Low HDL is a weak diagnostic marker so it's quite wrong to say that it has as much to do with cholesterol as blood sugar. Blood sugar is the predominant factor in met syndrome, HDL is ancillary at best.

    in your opinion .. according to other sources such as american heart org and mayo clinic metabolic syndrome need not be acompanied by insulin resistance ... whether you want to believe it or not it is quite possible to be diagnosed with metabolic syndrome due to high bp, obesity, low HDL, lack of physical activity ... I know for a fact that very low levels of HDL are taken as seriously by the medical profession as raised blood sugar levels ...


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    corkcomp wrote: »
    in your opinion .. according to other sources such as american heart org and mayo clinic metabolic syndrome need not be acompanied by insulin resistance ... whether you want to believe it or not it is quite possible to be diagnosed with metabolic syndrome due to high bp, obesity, low HDL, lack of physical activity ... I know for a fact that very low levels of HDL are taken as seriously by the medical profession as raised blood sugar levels ...

    And you know what lowers HDL? Carbohydrate. You know what raises it? Saturated fat.

    The reason that abdominal obesity is a risk factor is because it indicates visceral fat which indicates fatty liver and fatty liver is an indication of hepatic insulin resistance. So to say that someone can have metabolic syndrome and not have a disordered glucose metabolism is utterly ridiculous and I don't know why you would argue otherwise unless you are just being contrary for the sake of it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    And you know what lowers HDL? Carbohydrate. You know what raises it? Saturated fat.

    The reason that abdominal obesity is a risk factor is because it indicates visceral fat which indicates fatty liver and fatty liver is an indication of hepatic insulin resistance. So to say that someone can have metabolic syndrome and not have a disordered glucose metabolism is utterly ridiculous and I don't know why you would argue otherwise unless you are just being contrary for the sake of it.

    im not sure what you mean by contrary (ok, google sorted that lol) but if anyone is being contrary its your good self, based on the post above ... its a classic example of twisting things - lets stick to the discussion at hand here - low HDL can be caused by lots of things, lack of physical activity is one of the main ones - my HDL is way higher than normal range (not really a problem) and i eat a lot of carbohydrate and not a lot of saturated fat, and i doubt i am unique!
    again, its simply not true that everybody with central obesity has blood sugar issues, some do and some dont, period.
    according to some sources insulin resistance is not a pre requisite for met syndrome and according to it is, so each can form their own opinion.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    corkcomp wrote: »
    im not sure what you mean by contrary (ok, google sorted that lol) but if anyone is being contrary its your good self, based on the post above ... its a classic example of twisting things - lets stick to the discussion at hand here - low HDL can be caused by lots of things, lack of physical activity is one of the main ones - my HDL is way higher than normal range (not really a problem) and i eat a lot of carbohydrate and not a lot of saturated fat, and i doubt i am unique!
    again, its simply not true that everybody with central obesity has blood sugar issues, some do and some dont, period.
    according to some sources insulin resistance is not a pre requisite for met syndrome and according to it is, so each can form their own opinion.

    Now you are the one who is twisting things.

    Lack of physical activity DOES NOT lower HDL. Some forms of exercise can raise HDL but the things that lower HDL are:

    1. Smoking
    2. Carbohydrate
    3. Transfats
    4. Some medications

    The whole discussion of the various symptoms is immaterial anyway because they all have the same underlying cause, insulin resistance, which every single person with metabolic syndrome has.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/q41268052426733h/
    We conclude that (1) insulin sensitivity, glucose tolerance, blood pressure, body fat mass and distribution, and serum lipids are a network of mutually interrelated functions; and (2) an insulin resistance syndrome underlies each and all of the six disorders carrying an increased risk of coronary artery disease.

    Insulin resistance is diagnosed via a glucose tolerance test. No impaired glucose metabolism, no metabolic syndrome.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Now you are the one who is twisting things.

    Lack of physical activity DOES NOT lower HDL. Some forms of exercise can raise HDL but the things that lower HDL are:

    1. Smoking
    2. Carbohydrate
    3. Transfats
    4. Some medications

    The whole discussion of the various symptoms is immaterial anyway because they all have the same underlying cause, insulin resistance, which every single person with metabolic syndrome has.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/q41268052426733h/



    Insulin resistance is diagnosed via a glucose tolerance test. No impaired glucose metabolism, no metabolic syndrome.

    lack of physical activity DOES lower HDL - fact. some of the other factors you mention also lower HDL, nobody is disputing this

    no impared glucose metabolism, no metabolic syndrome = false . as i previously mentioned several sources say the diagnosis can be based on a number of factors, which do not have to include insulin resistance ... a lot of overweight people will have insulin regulation issues, but a lot dont and this is something you are failing to grasp.


Advertisement