Is Diabetes Genetic?

[audreyh1]

Subcutaneous fat is not harmful, it's fat around your organs that is a problem.

right.

In general, for women, I think this described as apple versus pear shape. The lower belly fat and fat on hips and thighs is generally not considered a health risk. It's fat developing at the waist and above that is an indicator of fat around organs (like the beer bellies on some men). That's why waist measurement is sometimes used as an indicator of heart attack risk.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/abdominal-fat-and-what-to-do-about-it

 

[haha]

Subcutaneous fat is not harmful, it's fat around your organs that is a problem.

I understand that. But posters have been saying that they put on fat around their middle. I think that it takes specialo studies like DEXA scans to distinguish one from the other. Also, I wonder how likely it really is that one would have lots of fat around the organs and no subcut fat? This may be another example of a blogger guru problem, not something that reasonably active people with quality diets (which in my opinion do not include sugar, even in so called moderation.) But this is just my prejudice, since I don't really have any way to know.

It is asking for an argument on this forum to say that sugar is a large problem, since it is received wisdom that "a calorie is a calorie". Nevertheless, if one eschews sugar in all it's forms, and exercises regularly, IMO it is very unlikely that he or she has much to fear from being "fat inside, thin outside".

Ha

 

[MRG]

I understand that. But posters have been saying that they put on fat around their middle. I think that it takes specialo studies like DEXA scans to distinguish one from the other. Also, I wonder how likely it really is that one would have lots of fat around the organs and no subcut fat? This may be another example of a blogger guru problem, not something that reasonably active people with quality diets (which in my opinion do not include sugar, even in so called moderation.) But this is just my prejudice, since I don't really have any way to know.

It is asking for an argument on this forum to say that sugar is a large problem, since it is received wisdom that "a calorie is a calorie". Nevertheless, if one eschews sugar in all it's forms, and exercises regularly, IMO it is very unlikely that he or she has much to fear from being "fat inside, thin outside".

Ha

How do you eat fruits and intake zero sugar? I think most folks agree that blueberries are a good thing to eat, they're 10% sugar.

 

[haha]

How do you eat fruits and intake zero sugar? I think most folks agree that blueberries are a good thing to eat, they're 10% sugar.

Again, I am not looking for another leads nowhere discussion. Of course i eat some fruit, and therefor I do take in some sugar, that which is inherent in the fruit. I also get some sugar of a sort when I have plain yogurt. And let's not forget the sugars in oysters and scallops and beef liver. When I said sugar in any form, I mean't table sugar, HFCS, honey, molasses, etc. I never figured on this sort of interpretation.

As to what most folks agree, I don't know or care. What most folks agree has not been a very good guide to much of anything so far. I do think one would survive quite well without fruit, (The Inuit seemed to make it fine) but it does taste very good so to totally avoid fruit would seem beyond reasonable.

I don't pretend to know how much fruit is reasonable. I do know that I radically changed my diet maybe 20 years or so ago, and my last A1C was 5.3, an all time low for me. I am former pancakes and syrup guy!

I should remind folks that I am not any kind of expert, not a blogger, not anyone with anything to gain from convincing anybody of anything. Just trying to share a simple experience, which is very likely not relevant to anyone else's life.

Ha

 

[Exrook]

https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-...sr=8-1&keywords=how+not+to+die+michael+greger
The blurb from amazon:

The vast majority of premature deaths can be prevented through simple changes in diet and lifestyle. In How Not to Die, Dr. Michael Greger, the internationally-renowned nutrition expert, physician, and founder of NutritionFacts.org, examines the fifteen top causes of premature death in America-heart disease, various cancers, diabetes, Parkinson's, high blood pressure, and more-and explains how nutritional and lifestyle interventions can sometimes trump prescription pills and other pharmaceutical and surgical approaches, freeing us to live healthier lives.
The simple truth is that most doctors are good at treating acute illnesses but bad at preventing chronic disease. The fifteen leading causes of death claim the lives of 1.6 million Americans annually. This doesn't have to be the case. By following Dr. Greger's advice, all of it backed up by strong scientific evidence, you will learn which foods to eat and which lifestyle changes to make to live longer.
History of prostate cancer in your family? Put down that glass of milk and add flaxseed to your diet whenever you can. Have high blood pressure? Hibiscus tea can work better than a leading hypertensive drug-and without the side effects. Fighting off liver disease? Drinking coffee can reduce liver inflammation. Battling breast cancer? Consuming soy is associated with prolonged survival. Worried about heart disease (the number 1 killer in the United States)? Switch to a whole-food, plant-based diet, which has been repeatedly shown not just to prevent the disease but often stop it in its tracks.
In addition to showing what to eat to help treat the top fifteen causes of death, How Not to Die includes Dr. Greger's Daily Dozen -a checklist of the twelve foods we should consume every day.Full of practical, actionable advice and surprising, cutting edge nutritional science, these doctor's orders are just what we need to live longer, healthier lives.

 

[Chuckanut]

This a long talk by Dr. Lustig and it gets very technical. It is his nature to support his claims with lots of detailed science. But, at about 41 minutes he talks about what he believes is causing the rise in diabetes based upon studies done in Europe. It's not very technical. Essentially, they found that when sugar consumption changes, three years later diabetes changes in the same direction.

FWIW, I tried to purchase some brats today that did not contain corn syrup or some other form of sugar. Not possible. Same with Italian sausage, even the hot sausage, it has sugar or corn syrup in it. Not so good.

 

[galeno]

Reducing insulin resistance (IR) is your goal if you are DM2 or obese.

Main weapons: low carb high fat (LCHF) diet; regular exercise; and metformin.

 

[MRG]

Again, I am not looking for another leads nowhere discussion. Of course i eat some fruit, and therefor I do take in some sugar, that which is inherent in the fruit. I also get some sugar of a sort when I have plain yogurt. And let's not forget the sugars in oysters and scallops and beef liver. When I said sugar in any form, I mean't table sugar, HFCS, honey, molasses, etc. I never figured on this sort of interpretation.

As to what most folks agree, I don't know or care. What most folks agree has not been a very good guide to much of anything so far. I do think one would survive quite well without fruit, (The Inuit seemed to make it fine) but it does taste very good so to totally avoid fruit would seem beyond reasonable.

I don't pretend to know how much fruit is reasonable. I do know that I radically changed my diet maybe 20 years or so ago, and my last A1C was 5.3, an all time low for me. I am former pancakes and syrup guy!

I should remind folks that I am not any kind of expert, not a blogger, not anyone with anything to gain from convincing anybody of anything. Just trying to share a simple experience, which is very likely not relevant to anyone else's life.

Ha

Sorry wasn't looking for a debate. Only clarification on what a quality diet that includes no sugar was.

I do know of folks who don't eat fruits just because of sugar. Some of these folks are in long term ketosis and generally live on less than 10 grams of carbs daily. While I eat fewer carbs, and more fats than the USDA suggests, I don't limit my diet to that extreme.

 

[braumeister]

I tried to purchase some brats today that did not contain corn syrup or some other form of sugar. Not possible. Same with Italian sausage, even the hot sausage, it has sugar or corn syrup in it. Not so good.

Something not usually considered, but relevant: sugar has long been nearly as common as salt for curing meats. But the amount of sugar contained in your typical sausage is pretty close to negligible. They have to put it on the label because it was in fact "used" to cure the meat, but not something I would worry about.

 

[Chuckanut]

Something not usually considered, but relevant: sugar has long been nearly as common as salt for curing meats. But the amount of sugar contained in your typical sausage is pretty close to negligible. They have to put it on the label because it was in fact "used" to cure the meat, but not something I would worry about.

Normally, I would agree with you, but added sugar is in so many foods today that it makes me wonder.

 

[msieweke]

Reducing insulin resistance (IR) is your goal if you are DM2 or obese.

Main weapons: low carb high fat (LCHF) diet; regular exercise; and metformin.

Fasting is another tool, and it's even more effective than a LCHF diet. Jason Fung, MD, is a kidney specialist who uses fasting to help T2 diabetics to reverse the disease. His YouTube channel has lots of useful info: Jason Fung. I'm working my way through his book on fasting, but so far most of the useful info is in his videos for free.

 

[Winemaker]

Sorry wasn't looking for a debate. Only clarification on what a quality diet that includes no sugar was.

I do know of folks who don't eat fruits just because of sugar. Some of these folks are in long term ketosis and generally live on less than 10 grams of carbs daily. While I eat fewer carbs, and more fats than the USDA suggests, I don't limit my diet to that extreme.

Try getting some fruit or berries to ferment into wine. Not going to happen, not enough sugar. I have to add white raisins or sugar even to get a wine yeast to go the distance to a 11% wine.

 

[harley]

Fasting is another tool, and it's even more effective than a LCHF diet. Jason Fung, MD, is a kidney specialist who uses fasting to help T2 diabetics to reverse the disease. His YouTube channel has lots of useful info: Jason Fung. I'm working my way through his book on fasting, but so far most of the useful info is in his videos for free.

I just bought his book "The Obesity Code", and intend to start it right after I finish Mark Hyman's "Eat Fat, Be Thin", which is full of interesting information that counters the "all calories are created equal" theory. Thanks for the heads up on the videos, I'll check them out too.

 

[oldtrig]

"pre-diabetic" is exactly what the Doctor told me 12 years ago at age 57. My A1C was 5.9. I walked and walked until I brought it to 5.0. Now at age 69 I had the Doc check me two months ago. It was 5.6 and I don't walk as near as I did back then and I eat most anything I want. Go figure

 

[eytonxav]

Relative to carbs/sugars, take a fruit and cereal that contain the same amount of sugar. Which do you think is going to effect your blood sugar more?

Processed carbs are typically the ones that spike blood sugars quickly, but slower digested natural carbs probably will not. I'm a believer that not all carbs/sugars/calories are created equal, but not looking to get into a debate on that subject.

 

[exnavynuke]

Not all carbs are created equal, that's a fact. There's entire databases you can look up glycemic index and glycemic loads for foods out there (which is really what you're talking about imo). The glycemic index, and load, scores for foods can be quite important for those of us that have to regulate our insulin levels ourselves since we need to know not just how much insulin to use, but also when to use it. While processed foods "tend" to have higher a glycemic index, there are plenty that don't and quite a few natural foods with a high glycemic index as well. Just an FYI as I've kinda been forced to understand the subject quite well.

 

[AllDone]

Processed carbs are typically the ones that spike blood sugars quickly, but slower digested natural carbs probably will not. I'm a believer that not all carbs/sugars/calories are created equal, but not looking to get into a debate on that subject.

Thank you! "Carbohydrate" is a huge category of really diverse substances ranging from glucose to cellulose and lignins.

Acarbose (trade name Precose) is a bean-derived sugar sold as a drug to control blood sugar in diabetics. It works quite well although its side effect is the same well-known effect that beans produce. Legume consumption has also been shown to lower blood sugar. Google "second meal effect".

 

[NW-Bound]

Is diabetes genetic? I think so. However, nutritional effects can reduce the severity.

Last year, my blood glucose was 102, despite drinking no soda nor eating sweets like cake or cookies. Just by switching from white rice to converted rice, eating quinoa and lesser bread, my blood glucose dropped to 87. A1C is 5.5 (never had it before so do not know what it was). I do not count calories or what I eat. Of course, YMMV.

 

[Amethyst]

I follow these discussions, since my older siblings are T2. (Although I don't recall our parents being diagnosed with diabetes or pre-diabetes).

Anyway: The people who say their blood numbers improved with post-meal walks: Is it the post-meal-ness of the walks that made the difference? Or are these walks the only exercise you take? Not trying to point an exercise finger at anybody. Just wondering.

 

[AllDone]

There was a recent study done that compared walking thirty minutes per day to walking ten minutes after each meal. The latter group had a slightly better improvement in A1C.

 

[Amethyst]

I'll take a look for that (unless you have a link handy). It seems intuitive enough: everyone's blood sugar rises after eating; then the muscles are engaged, and use up this newly-available energy.

There are old-fashioned traditions of going for a stroll to "settle one's digestion." Maybe it's time to revive those traditions for health reasons.

I would still think that a person who works out vigorously each day, at a convenient time, would do better than one whose sole exercise was a short walk after meals. But that is only a surmise,

There was a recent study done that compared walking thirty minutes per day to walking ten minutes after each meal. The latter group had a slightly better improvement in A1C.

 

[NW-Bound]

The 10-minute walk post-meal was mentioned earlier in the thread.

It is here:

There was something mentioned on the news the other day about taking a 10 minute walk immediately after eating to lower your post meal blood sugar. I found a link to an article on this strategy:
A 10-minute walk after every meal 'effective at controlling diabetes' - Health News - NHS Choices

 

[eytonxav]

I follow these discussions, since my older siblings are T2. (Although I don't recall our parents being diagnosed with diabetes or pre-diabetes).

Anyway: The people who say their blood numbers improved with post-meal walks: Is it the post-meal-ness of the walks that made the difference? Or are these walks the only exercise you take? Not trying to point an exercise finger at anybody. Just wondering.

I exercise regularly, gym 3x a week and play softball. The recent improvement in my AiC was just the result of walking after meals, without softball, while the other gym exercise did not change. Going from a 5.9 A!C to 5.6 improvement was accomplished in only 45 days of the walking program, so the result might have been better if walking was done over the full 90 day period that the A1C measures.

 

[audreyh1]

So, my understanding of metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance developing into type 2 diabetes goes something like this:

As sugar builds up in the blood stream due to muscles losing their insulin sensitivity (something that can happen with age, inactive lifestyles, obesity), the body has to produce more and more insulin to get the muscles and fat cells to take up the blood sugar (glucose) for storage. It tends to create a vicious cycle as at first the body produces more and more insulin, and eventually the pancreas wears out, simply can't produce enough insulin, elevated blood sugar levels persist in the blood causing those bad long-term side effects suffered by diabetics. I think the high insulin levels can also cause long-term detrimental effects.

Exercise, such as walking, helps improve muscle sensitivity to insulin, and can reverse the progression into full blown diabetes. Which is why it is highly recommended for diabetics and ore-diabetics.

The walking after meals probably provides a double whammy - you are getting the benefit of improving muscle insulin sensitivity, but at the same time the activity is burning up some of the blood sugar directly thus lowering the blood sugar levels, thus not requiring as much insulin to be released.

 

[galeno]

I totally disagree. The glycemic index is bunk. "Eat to your meter" is the way to go.

Not all carbs are created equal, that's a fact. There's entire databases you can look up glycemic index and glycemic loads for foods out there (which is really what you're talking about imo). The glycemic index, and load, scores for foods can be quite important for those of us that have to regulate our insulin levels ourselves since we need to know not just how much insulin to use, but also when to use it. While processed foods "tend" to have higher a glycemic index, there are plenty that don't and quite a few natural foods with a high glycemic index as well. Just an FYI as I've kinda been forced to understand the subject quite well.