The cause of my diabetes (kidney, diet, eat, insulin)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Doctors get little to no training about nutrition in medical school. .
That's because "Nutrition" is a pseudo-science relying mostly on questionnaire-type studies ("How much salted, smoked, packaged meat did you eat each day over the last 25 yrs?"-- as if people (a) can remember, and (b) never ever vary their diet or tastes, and (c) aren't lying to make themselves appear "good."
Physicians are taught biochemistry, cellular physiology and physiology, including endocrinology-- all much more scientific and practical, going way beyond "nutrition."
We'd all like to think our health depended on something easy to control-- like diet. But it doesn't. You can remain quite well nourished simply by dumpster diving for your food. Everything we eat is digested down into basic building blocks of simple sugars, amino acids, fats, minerals & vitamins and absorbed from our intestines, going directly to our livers where things are further broken down mostly to acetyl units and then combined with CoEnzyme-A-- the basic building blocks of biochemistry. Those are then built back into our own sugars, fats and amino acids according to our personal genetic blueprint before they are released into the general circulation for delivery to our cells. Our cells don't know what the food source originally was.
That's because "Nutrition" is a pseudo-science relying mostly on questionnaire-type studies ("How much salted, smoked, packaged meat did you eat each day over the last 25 yrs?"-- as if people (a) can remember, and (b) never ever vary their diet or tastes, and (c) aren't lying to make themselves appear "good."
Physicians are taught biochemistry, cellular physiology and physiology, including endocrinology-- all much more scientific and practical, going way beyond "nutrition."
We'd all like to think our health depended on something easy to control-- like diet. But it doesn't. You can remain quite well nourished simply by dumpster diving for your food. Everything we eat is digested down into basic building blocks of simple sugars, amino acids, fats, minerals & vitamins and absorbed from our intestines, going directly to our livers where things are further broken down mostly to acetyl units and then combined with CoEnzyme-A-- the basic building blocks of biochemistry. Those are then built back into our own sugars, fats and amino acids according to our personal genetic blueprint before they are released into the general circulation for delivery to our cells. Our cells don't know what the food source originally was.
I do suppose that "nutrition" is not the best word to use in this situation but "Nourished" is NOT the same as "Healthy". You should have said one can survive by dumpster diving, but healthy? I don't think so. Just look around at the people that eat the "Standard American Diet", do they look healthy? Americans are some of the fattest people on earth and they are not getting any better any time soon. One of the biggest culprits is sugar and that should be public enemy number one.
I do suppose that "nutrition" is not the best word to use in this situation but "Nourished" is NOT the same as "Healthy". You should have said one can survive by dumpster diving, but healthy? I don't think so. Just look around at the people that eat the "Standard American Diet", do they look healthy? Americans are some of the fattest people on earth and they are not getting any better any time soon. One of the biggest culprits is sugar and that should be public enemy number one.
Look at it this way: Americans may have a high percentage of obesity, but our average longevity is within a few tenths of a yr of any other group on Earth. Note that a tenth of a yr is only 5 weeks-- out of 80 yrs. Obesity isn't really making us any un-healthier. (BTW- by definition, half of all people are under-weight.)
As I've said before-- there is no such thing as a "good" diet or a "bad" diet-- there are only adequate diets and inadequate diets.
I challenge everyone (in a friendly way) to use their favorite source of diet info to evaluate their own typical daily eating. I'll bet dollars to donuts that few of us are getting the "RDA" of all nutrients consistently, yet it is rare to find someone suffering from nutritional deficiency in the US. Either the recommendations are wrong or the food evaluations are wrong.
Even tho I'm aware of this, I still don't consistently do things right, yet I'm quite healthy, strong and spry. I'm 68 y/o and don't look a day over 66 1/2
As an after- thought, to paraphrase Seinfeld's take on "wet" vs "wetter"--
healthy is a the absence of disease, therefore, once you're "healthy," you can't be "healthier."
Look at it this way: Americans may have a high percentage of obesity, but our average longevity is within a few tenths of a yr of any other group on Earth. Note that a tenth of a yr is only 5 weeks-- out of 80 yrs. Obesity isn't really making us any un-healthier. (BTW- by definition, half of all people are under-weight.)
I don't know where you get your statistics but according to this article 2 out of 3 adults are overweight or obese. It is also dated 2009 to 2010. It is not getting any better. Also, just because someone is not overweight does not mean they are underweight. The article should be from a reputable source.
As I've said before-- there is no such thing as a "good" diet or a "bad" diet-- there are only adequate diets and inadequate diets.
You can call it whatever you want, whether inadequate or adequate or whatever. The goal is not just to survive but to thrive. There IS a difference.
This is all pretty obvious but obesity can lead to some of the following, none of which sound "pleasant".
type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, osteoarthritis, some types of cancer, stroke etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
As an after- thought, to paraphrase Seinfeld's take on "wet" vs "wetter"--
healthy is a the absence of disease, therefore, once you're "healthy," you can't be "healthier."
To me, healthier would be having a lower risk of having some of the conditions listed above. Of course, the risks of getting some of those conditions is debatable such as heart disease and cancer. Nobody can come up with a concrete answer. We seem to rely a lot on statistics to come up with those. One day we hear that cholesterol causes heart disease, the next day we hear it doesn't and so on. It would be nice to have a more exact science.
I don't know where you get your statistics but according to this article 2 out of 3 adults are overweight or obese. It is also dated 2009 to 2010. It is not getting any better. Also, just because someone is not overweight does not mean they are underweight. The article should be from a reputable source.
You can call it whatever you want, whether inadequate or adequate or whatever. The goal is not just to survive but to thrive. There IS a difference.
This is all pretty obvious but obesity can lead to some of the following, none of which sound "pleasant".
type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, osteoarthritis, some types of cancer, stroke etc.
To me, healthier would be having a lower risk of having some of the conditions listed above. Of course, the risks of getting some of those conditions is debatable such as heart disease and cancer. Nobody can come up with a concrete answer. We seem to rely a lot on statistics to come up with those. One day we hear that cholesterol causes heart disease, the next day we hear it doesn't and so on. It would be nice to have a more exact science.
By definition, half of the people are below the mean and half above it, so half are under-weight.
Relationship of diet to disease: poorly correlated for CVD and most of the positive correlation can be attributed to DM.
Please define "thriving." You're either healthy or have a disease. It's a binary situation. You gotta be one or the other.
Let's agree that control of DM is directly related to diet (specifically carb intake), but let's ignore food allergies & intolerances such as Celiac Dis or Lactase Defic. Outright malnourishment includes pellagra, scurvy, etc -essentially never seen in the US except when caused by diseases involving malabsorption. Can you otherwise name any disease or state of non-health caused by diet?
By definition, half of the people are below the mean and half above it, so half are under-weight.
No. That's not how it works. It is true that half of the people are below the mean and half are above it. People who are under weight are people who have a body weight that is too low to be healthy. It does not include everyone who is below the mean weight.
No. That's not how it works. It is true that half of the people are below the mean and half are above it. People who are under weight are people who have a body weight that is too low to be healthy. It does not include everyone who is below the mean weight.
In that case, given that obesity is not the cause of any disease, over-weight is not unhealthy, so who cares? That was my point about mentioning the real meaning of the math of under- vs over- weight. Weight extremes are not in themselves unhealthy, but are associated with inappropriate levels of nutrient intake.
This is obvious for a lot of folks including me. Excessive sugar consumption was the cause of MY type 2 diabetes. My poison of choice was regular coke in excess amounts on a daily basis for years and years. Your's may be something else. My pancreas couldn't keep up and eventually broke down. IMO, genetics only play a small part with this disease. The main culprit is diet of course. The ADA spews out tons of misinformation all causing even more harm. Take a look if you wish.
Excessive consumption of soft drinks has been closely correlated with the development of type 2 diabetes, but it has nothing to do with your pancreas. That is Type 1 diabetes and requires the use of insulin shots.
Type 2 diabetes is a metabolic condition where the body becomes resistant to processing insulin - they call it "insulin resistance". The pancreas produces insulin just fine but your body is unable to properly use it.
Some people - and I am among them - can function fine anyway as long as they can burn the glucose off before the body converts it into fat, which is what happens to excess glucose floating around when you're insulin resistant. For decades, as long as I performed strenuous cardiopulmonary exercise (aerobic), I maintained great blood sugar levels, could more or less maintain my weight, and had great LDL and HDL levels (low for the former and high for the latter).
But when I became disabled that stopped being possible for me and after about 8 years of lack of significant exercise, I became a type 2 diabetic. Metformin alone has reduced my A1c from about 12 to about 8, but there is little I can do in the way of diet to help things along as I already eat far fewer calories and carbs than most people. There are very few things I've had to give up totally and I normally only eat one meal a day anyway, which even before the diabetes rarely exceeded the 60g of carb allowed by the ADA. And I have never had a sweet tooth nor do I drink soda (never have) so that is not an issue either.
I do have a protein shake in the morning - for 2 reasons. Firstly because I have had to reduce my intake of milk, formerly my main source of protein and I need a protein replacement. Secondly because I need something to take my metformin with and breakfast cereals are now out as they are high carbs - too high in relation to nutritional value given my limited allowance for carbs/calories. It's only about 160 calories, 30g of protein, and 5 carbs total.
I'm just one of those people who needs to burn it off because it isn't intake that's the problem. I've been insulin resistant the whole time but can no longer counteract that with significant levels of exercise.
Frankly, were it me, I would not be taking metformin at near-normal levels of A1c. I'd be exercising my a$$ off instead. I would suggest he OP look at diet and exercise before going straight to the metformin at such low levels. But I never had a blood sugar level out of range or an A1c either until it had flipped over into full blown Diabetes type 2. I had my blood tested for both 2 to 4 times a year.
By definition, half of the people are below the mean and half above it, so half are under-weight.
Relationship of diet to disease: poorly correlated for CVD and most of the positive correlation can be attributed to DM.
Please define "thriving." You're either healthy or have a disease. It's a binary situation. You gotta be one or the other.
Let's agree that control of DM is directly related to diet (specifically carb intake), but let's ignore food allergies & intolerances such as Celiac Dis or Lactase Defic. Outright malnourishment includes pellagra, scurvy, etc -essentially never seen in the US except when caused by diseases involving malabsorption. Can you otherwise name any disease or state of non-health caused by diet?
That is utter nonsense. We do not look at either the median or the average for these things - we look at a bell curve and a normal distribution. Everything within 1 standard deviation is the "normal" range, that's about 68% of the population. Within 2 standard deviations is still normalish, that's about 95% of the population. The tails of the bell curve are the truly out of range and outliers.
Health itself is most certainly NOT a binary condition, it is a distribution, a range. To believe otherwise is to subscribe to psuedoscience and ignore actual science. Even cancer is not really a binary condition of either having it or not having it - because there are blood components that indicate a RISK of cancer as being higher or lower. People in remission watch these blood components very closely to catch a recurrence as soon as possible after it starts growing again (if it ever does).
You can be undernourished without actually having a condition of malnourishment such as scurvy or rickets.
As for other diseases caused by improper nourishment, that is super simple. Heart conditions, cholesterol problems, any condition you already have is worsened by improper nourishment. Liver and kidney conditions related to improper nourishment also abound.
Having or not having a particular disease may be seen as a binary state - on or off, you have that particular disease or you don't - but this is certainly NOT true for overall health, nor for many specific conditions such as hypothyroidism. There are far too many variables involved. Everything is on a RANGE.
You do not take the midpoint and say everyone under that is underweight and everyone over that is overweight. That would make 100% of the population either over or underweight. You look at how many standard deviations away from the mean someone is and go from there. Weight in particular is a bit more complicated because we use actuarial tables rather than just the distribution of the general population to determine healthful weights, but in any case we are looking at a DISTRIBUTION and not a single value for what is considered to be "healthful" rather than simply "usual".
Take some statistics classes so you can think about these things logically.
Excessive consumption of soft drinks has been closely correlated with the development of type 2 diabetes, but it has nothing to do with your pancreas. That is Type 1 diabetes and requires the use of insulin shots.
Type 2 diabetes is a metabolic condition where the body becomes resistant to processing insulin - they call it "insulin resistance". The pancreas produces insulin just fine but your body is unable to properly use it.
Some people - and I am among them - can function fine anyway as long as they can burn the glucose off before the body converts it into fat, which is what happens to excess glucose floating around when you're insulin resistant. For decades, as long as I performed strenuous cardiopulmonary exercise (aerobic), I maintained great blood sugar levels, could more or less maintain my weight, and had great LDL and HDL levels (low for the former and high for the latter).
But when I became disabled that stopped being possible for me and after about 8 years of lack of significant exercise, I became a type 2 diabetic. Metformin alone has reduced my A1c from about 12 to about 8, but there is little I can do in the way of diet to help things along as I already eat far fewer calories and carbs than most people. There are very few things I've had to give up totally and I normally only eat one meal a day anyway, which even before the diabetes rarely exceeded the 60g of carb allowed by the ADA. And I have never had a sweet tooth nor do I drink soda (never have) so that is not an issue either.
I do have a protein shake in the morning - for 2 reasons. Firstly because I have had to reduce my intake of milk, formerly my main source of protein and I need a protein replacement. Secondly because I need something to take my metformin with and breakfast cereals are now out as they are high carbs - too high in relation to nutritional value given my limited allowance for carbs/calories. It's only about 160 calories, 30g of protein, and 5 carbs total.
I'm just one of those people who needs to burn it off because it isn't intake that's the problem. I've been insulin resistant the whole time but can no longer counteract that with significant levels of exercise.
Frankly, were it me, I would not be taking metformin at near-normal levels of A1c. I'd be exercising my a$$ off instead. I would suggest he OP look at diet and exercise before going straight to the metformin at such low levels. But I never had a blood sugar level out of range or an A1c either until it had flipped over into full blown Diabetes type 2. I had my blood tested for both 2 to 4 times a year.
I'm the OP. Been there done that. Metformin alone does almost nothing to bring my numbers down. My problem is two fold, insulin resistance and insulin production. I need a second medication to increase insulin production from the pancreas. It is in a class of drugs called Sulfonylyreas. This type of medication has draw backs and is known to burn out beta cells, so I take the lowest dose possible to hopefully prevent this. I do the rest with diet. My latest A1C was 5.1 so that's how I do it. So again, my pancreas can still produce insulin but not on it's own. It needs a push so to speak. I take glimepiride which is in the newest generation of this drug.
Type 1 is where there is little to no insulin production, usually none.
There are many different types of drugs to treat diabetes with new ones coming out all the time. If you watch TV it's hard to miss them. Read more here if you wish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-diabetic_medication
It's not just Metformin and everyone is different.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
