Re: noob poster - big fat ZERO knowledge about DM
- From: "RK" <reisak@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:45:37 -0400
"Hi_Therre" <Bruce35@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0bs5h1lh1k6eiq431r27gll5qcs04rf0ir@xxxxxxxxxx
| On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:09:57 +1200, Quentin Grady
| <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|
| >This post not CC'd by email
| > On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 18:09:59 -0500, Hi_Therre <Bruce35@xxxxxxxxxxx>
| >wrote:
| >
| >>>Many people here would wish it were. However nothing escapes the laws
of
| >>>thermodynamics, diabetics included.
| >>
| >>Has anybody in ASD ever won an argument with you? I doubt anyone has,
| >>not sure why.
| >
| >G'day G'day Hi_Therre, Ceebee et al,
| >
| > I see no particular reason why Ceebee would lose such an argument.
| >
| >The argument has two parts. The first is largely about semantics.
| >Is there really a concrete difference between causes and promotes?
| >
| >Let's look at a possible chain of casualty.
| >
| >Insulin resistance causes more insulin to be produced.
| >More insulin inhibits release of fat from fat storage cells.
| >Muscles are deprived of one of their principal fuels and this (along
| >with reduced glucose reaching cells)causes hunger signals.
| >Hunger signals cause people to eat more.
| >Eating more calories than are metabolised causes people to put on
| >weight.
| >
| >Of course such chains of casualty are weak because in practice each
| >step in reality needs an added clause.
| >
| >Insulin resistance causes more insulin to be produced.
| >... except where it doesn't.
| >
| >More insulin inhibits release of fat from fat storage cells.
| >... except where it doesn't.
| >
| >Muscles are deprived of one of their principal fuels, fat or glucose
| >and this causes hunger signals ... except where it doesn't.
| >(Example:- People on ultra low carb diets typically find the hunger
| >signals disappear. Atkins exploited the fact that after several days
| >people who are fasting lose some of the hunger signals associated with
| >low glucose.)
| >
| >Hunger signals cause people to eat more ... except where it doesn't.
| >(Examples. Some societies have inadequate food supplies, some people
| >participate in religious fasts etc)
| >
| >Eating more calories than are metabolised causes people to put on
| >weight ... except where it doesn't.
| >(Example. Eating peanuts where many calories are not metabolised
| >because of faulty chewing.)
| >
| >Thinking up exceptions to the to first step doesn't come to me
| >immediately, never the less the principle exists.
| >
| >A similar example of casualty proving shaky is said to occur with
| >saturated fats causing excess morbidity from CHD. Saturated fats
| >cause increased LDL. Excess LDL causes excess mortality from CHD. The
| >chain is short and each step has been established yet the pesky
| >exceptions mean the overall conclusion is weaker than the supporters
| >of the hypothesis would like. For example it is known that excess CRP
| >is a better indicator of CHD than cholesterol so something else is
| >present ... presumably inflammation and omega-6 fatty acids play a big
| >part in that though they tend to LOWER LDL.
| >
| >Put simply we could either talk about chains of casualty realising
| >that these can be broken at least some of the steps eg we might ignore
| >hunger signals or thwart them by adopting an ultra low carb diet ie
| >"starvation with fats" OR we can use the word promotes.
| >
| >IMHO it is largely semantics.
| >
| >The second issue is more quickly resolved. Betting on the laws of
| >thermodynamics applying to ANY phenomenon is a LOSING bet. From an
| >intelligent bookmakers perspective it is a 100% certainty so after
| >taking their cut they will pay out something like 90 cents in the
| >dollar.
| >
| You have missed the most important part of the discussion. CeeBee is
| just plain stubborn. My eating habits have not changed over the past
| couple years since I spike so easily. There was no sudden explosion
| of caloric input in my diet during this six week period. The fairly
| high useage of insulin was the only change. My weight was stable at
| 180 - 185 for quite a while prior, and is stable since at about 195.
| If my caloric intake was so intense, I would be at 300# and my BG's
| would be off the charts.
|
| We can stand here and relate the laws of physics till the end of time
| without result. Insulin caused my weight gain. Right CeeBee?
actually, you're both correct.
1. insulin will cause weight gain due to exactly what Quentin stated.
2. for one not to gain weight from insulin, calories out have to exceed
calories in
therefore, a) your body isn't metabolizing like it did last year b) you
didn't exercise enough c) you ate more then you thought.
theres no other reasoning for it. because a T1 will also gain weight if
they inject
more insulin, reason being, we eat more food to prevent lows, thus, if we
exercise
that drops us yet again... so... this is why many T1's on the old NPH were
heavier
then most, dealing with the nasty hypo's....
I myself... have zero IR, had a hard salami/provolone on a bagel warmed this
morning and have no fear because I'll take my walk in a bit... up and down
the stairs about 20x
there, i've exercised more calories then I took in, therefore, I wont gain
weight.
RK
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: noob poster - big fat ZERO knowledge about DM
- From: Quentin Grady
- Re: noob poster - big fat ZERO knowledge about DM
- References:
- Re: noob poster - big fat ZERO knowledge about DM
- From: Quentin Grady
- Re: noob poster - big fat ZERO knowledge about DM
- Prev by Date: Re: The ADA's statement on metabolic syndrome
- Next by Date: Re: Medical Alert Jewelry......
- Previous by thread: Re: noob poster - big fat ZERO knowledge about DM
- Next by thread: Re: noob poster - big fat ZERO knowledge about DM
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading