Fats and Insulin Resistance

Diet and Nutrition
21

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:

The point is type-2 diabetes did not exist 100 years ago when our diets were rich in both saturated and unsaturated fats.[/quote]

Diabetes has been known for 3500 year. Type two did indeed not exist over 100years ago, mainly because it was not called type 2 until the middle of last century.

One of the first thoughts of type 2 was perforemd by a Mathew Dobson back in the 1700’s, noting some died quickly and some suffered chronically - or taken as type 1 and type 2 diabetes respectively.

22

[quote]cycomiko wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:

The point is type-2 diabetes did not exist 100 years ago when our diets were rich in both saturated and unsaturated fats.

Diabetes has been known for 3500 year. Type two did indeed not exist over 100years ago, mainly because it was not called type 2 until the middle of last century.

One of the first thoughts of type 2 was perforemd by a Mathew Dobson back in the 1700’s, noting some died quickly and some suffered chronically - or taken as type 1 and type 2 diabetes respectively.[/quote]

You have some serious assumption going on here unless you have more than this and in any case there was not anything like the epidemic we’re seeing now.

23

I did not see age posted. One also needs to consider the hormone imbalance implications of syndrome X or metabolic disorder.

Part of insulin resistance is determined by the health of the cell membranes. These should have lots of EFAs and omega-6 and other unhealthy fats reduce cell wall permeability.

Chromium improves insulin sensitivity and cinnamon does as well.

24

[quote]cycomiko wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:

The point is type-2 diabetes did not exist 100 years ago when our diets were rich in both saturated and unsaturated fats.

Diabetes has been known for 3500 year. Type two did indeed not exist over 100years ago, mainly because it was not called type 2 until the middle of last century.

One of the first thoughts of type 2 was perforemd by a Mathew Dobson back in the 1700’s, noting some died quickly and some suffered chronically - or taken as type 1 and type 2 diabetes respectively.[/quote]

Known for 3,500 years?
Where is the data?
How did this Mathew Dobson know that they were suffering from type 2 diabetes or even Hyperglycemia?
It could of been any disease,since I can name about 50 that you can die quickly from.
I find that complete B.S.
There may have been a few cases of type 2 diabetes,which can usually be treated with diet and exercise, in the 1,700’s,but type 1 and type 2 diabetes was not at epidemic proportions like we now see today.
I don’t believe type 2 diabetes is a disease.

25

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
cycomiko wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:

The point is type-2 diabetes did not exist 100 years ago when our diets were rich in both saturated and unsaturated fats.

Diabetes has been known for 3500 year. Type two did indeed not exist over 100years ago, mainly because it was not called type 2 until the middle of last century.

One of the first thoughts of type 2 was perforemd by a Mathew Dobson back in the 1700’s, noting some died quickly and some suffered chronically - or taken as type 1 and type 2 diabetes respectively.

Known for 3,500 years?
Where is the data?
How did this Mathew Dobson know that they were suffering from type 2 diabetes or even Hyperglycemia?[/quote]

Sugary urine

Sugary blood

This is how diabetes mellitus was analsed in the early days.

you really have no idea, the term diabetes has been around for thouands for years for a reason

how nice for you, it doesnt change anything tho.

Nice strawman, utterly pointless for somebody who was claiming type 2 has only been around for 100 years.

[quote]I don’t believe type 2 diabetes is a disease.
[/quote]

dis?ease

  1. a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.
26

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
cycomiko wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:

The point is type-2 diabetes did not exist 100 years ago when our diets were rich in both saturated and unsaturated fats.

Diabetes has been known for 3500 year. Type two did indeed not exist over 100years ago, mainly because it was not called type 2 until the middle of last century.

One of the first tho f thughts of type 2 was perforemd by a Mathew Dobson back in the 1700’s, noting some died quickly and some suffered chronically - or taken as type 1 and type 2 diabetes respectively.

You have some serious assumption going on here unless you have more than this and in any case there was not anything like the epidemic we’re seeing now.[/quote]

I see reading is difficult for you.

Diabetes mellitus has been around for thousands of years.
It was only defined in the 20th century.
Dobsons observations were the first documented analysis of blood and urinary sugar (tasted) and he observed the disease progress in his patients.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the current epidemic at all, and if you didnt create this wonderful strawman for youself you might have a position. But for a little simple explanation

Person A) Something didn’t happen before 100years ago
Person B) first documented evidence was ~300 years ago

see the flow?

27

For people who do not understand the history of diabetes, here goes a simple coverall…

its wikipedia, but pretty similar to the other reviewed story lines. Its a great story if you like those sorta things.

28

This one is better

http://spectrum.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/15/1/56

29

Listen Pal,
I read both of those pieces start to finish and nowhere was it ever alleged that any distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes was recognized before the 20th century.

Type 1, which is hereditary and the existence of which and ancient knowledge of was never in dispute has certainly been around as long as we have. I will once again qualify my agreement with Cthulu by saying I do believe type 2 which is very largely self induced though some are more predisposed than others, probably did exist throughout history at least in alcohol abusers, but probably not much in others because the other dietary causes thankfully had not yet been invented.

Whatever piddling number of cases there may have been which could’ve been caused by the overindulgence in sugar based foods that were practically unavailable to anyone but the affluent barely deserve note.

Whether or not type 2 is a disease is largely a matter of semantics, but I tend to view it as a condition with a set of symptoms brought on by voluntary nutritional trauma. Much like a broken bone. Nobody has the disease of broken bones. They break bones through external trauma.

Type 2 is very avoidable in most cases, just like broken bones and is the result of the ingestion of intolerable quantities of “foods” that destroy insulin sensitivity coupled with a sedentary lifestyle that usually accompanies that.

These “foods” aside from alcohol did not exist before the dawn of processed, refined, in essence nutritionally destroyed and nearly toxic foodstuffs.

You don’t strike me as an idiot, but maybe you should incorporate some mental exercise into your workout schedule.

30

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Listen Pal,
I read both of those pieces start to finish and nowhere was it ever alleged that any distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes was recognized before the 20th century.[/quote]

i dont know if you didnt read what I wrote or you just didnt undrstand it

How the fuck could somebody in 1776 show type 2 diabetes perfectly when

  1. they didnt understand the disease 100% what they were seeing. They reported observations of what they witnessed.

  2. the actual differentiation of two seperate diabetes was not developed until the mid 20th century. If the lack of insulin in type 1’s were not confirmed in the early 20th century, does that mean no cases have occured any earlier? or we just didnt know what we were looking for?

The observation of Dobsons was from a paper in 1776, which if you read shows descriptions of type 1 and 2 diabetes. its a classic in the history of diabetes, if you have access to a local univeristy with a decent library it makes a good read.

would you stop aruging his stupid stawman please.

I never said there was a lot of cases in those days, I never said there was a fucking epidemic in those days.

He stated that there was NO cases until 100 years ago, which is wrong.

31

[quote]cycomiko wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:
cycomiko wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:

The point is type-2 diabetes did not exist 100 years ago when our diets were rich in both saturated and unsaturated fats.

Diabetes has been known for 3500 year. Type two did indeed not exist over 100years ago, mainly because it was not called type 2 until the middle of last century.

One of the first thoughts of type 2 was perforemd by a Mathew Dobson back in the 1700’s, noting some died quickly and some suffered chronically - or taken as type 1 and type 2 diabetes respectively.

Known for 3,500 years?
Where is the data?
How did this Mathew Dobson know that they were suffering from type 2 diabetes or even Hyperglycemia?

Sugary urine

Sugary blood

This is how diabetes mellitus was analsed in the early days.

It could of been any disease,since I can name about 50 that you can die quickly from.

you really have no idea, the term diabetes has been around for thouands for years for a reason

I find that complete B.S.

how nice for you, it doesnt change anything tho.

There may have been a few cases of type 2 diabetes,which can usually be treated with diet and exercise, in the 1,700’s,but type 1 and type 2 diabetes was not at epidemic proportions like we now see today.
Nice strawman, utterly pointless for somebody who was claiming type 2 has only been around for 100 years.

I don’t believe type 2 diabetes is a disease.

dis?ease

  1. a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.

[/quote]

Maybe having high blood sugar was known for a 100 years,but in no way was type 2 diabetes around 3,500 years ago.
By the way,I never said type one never existed 100 years ago,please do learn how to read.
I believe it’s more of a condition.

32

The idea that some people with sugary urine lived longer than others is proof of anything other that is thin to say the least. It does not demonstrate the longer lived specimens didn’t simply have type 1 to less severe degree.

I’m conceding that type 2 existed throughout history albeit in an infinitesimally small number of people.
If that’s all your saying than were not too far away from one another.

Cthulu isn’t a dummy, but I’ll say again partner I think you overstated your case (Cthulu that is) in the use of the word nonexistent. There have been alcoholics forever and long term alcohol abuse brings on hypo/hyperglycemia pert near every time.

The point maybe all 3 of us agree on is that type 2 exploded like an atom bomb after the advent of widely available refined, processed foods.

33

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:

Maybe having high blood sugar was known for a 100 years,but in no way was type 2 diabetes around 3,500 years ago.
By the way,I never said type one never existed 100 years ago,please do learn how to read.
I believe it’s more of a condition.[/quote]

Do you have a reading problem?

  1. I never said type 2 was shown to be around 3500 years ago.
    2)strange how I never said anything about type 1 and 100 years ago, re-read it if you would like
    3)I dont care what you think it is
34

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The idea that some people with sugary urine lived longer than others is proof of anything other that is thin to say the least. It does not demonstrate the longer lived specimens didn’t simply have type 1 to less severe degree.[/quote]

Type 1 presents in a relatively specific way, because it is characterised by absensce of insulin.

Type 2 presents in its own way becuase of the insulin resistance and slow development period.

The reports given from that period show rather tight similarities to the two major forms of diabetes mellitus.

[quote]I’m conceding that type 2 existed throughout history albeit in an infinitesimally small number of people.
If that’s all your saying than were not too far away from one another. [/quote]
I never claimed that there was a plethora of people suffering in those days. It existed, which is wall I was saying.

[quote]Cthulu isn’t a dummy, but I’ll say again partner I think you overstated your case (Cthulu that is) in the use of the word nonexistent. There have been alcoholics forever and long term alcohol abuse brings on hypo/hyperglycemia pert near every time.[/quote]There has always been obesity, as can be seen in a lot of art over the periods. Generally the fatter were the rich.
Its not to say that the obese are the only people suffering from Type 2, as its development is also screwed in inflammation, even when people are skinny.
The prevalence and causes will be absolutely unknown, as a large percentage of any diseases in early days were ignored and unrecorded.

Calories are a fine thing, never before has caloric availability been so high, while required energy expenditure has been so low.

35

[quote]cycomiko wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:

Maybe having high blood sugar was known for a 100 years,but in no way was type 2 diabetes around 3,500 years ago.
By the way,I never said type one never existed 100 years ago,please do learn how to read.
I believe it’s more of a condition.

Do you have a reading problem?

  1. I never said type 2 was shown to be around 3500 years ago.
    2)strange how I never said anything about type 1 and 100 years ago, re-read it if you would like
    3)I dont care what you think it is
    [/quote]

Yes I do believe you have a reading/comprehension problem.
I never said you said that diabetes has been around for 3,500 years.
I’m talking about proof,scientific data showing that there were people dying of type 2 diabetes 100 years ago.
I don’t care about peoples observations in the 1700’s,since there were many disease with those symptoms.
I do not see any scientific data proofing that type 2 diabetes was around before the 20th century.
Maybe I am wrong about type 2 being around before the 20th century,but it never started spreading like wild fire until the 20th century.
I admit,maybe there were some people who suffered from high blood sugar due to the excessive amount of alcohol (wine,whiskey) they were consuming. But even though alcohol has always been around,diabetes never exploded into the aftermath we see today.
I wouldn’t say twas a case of blissful ignorance,just not much data showing that people were dying of type 2 diabetes before the 20th century.
I don’t know where the other poster got 3,500 years from though.

36

[quote]Cthulhu wrote:
cycomiko wrote:
Cthulhu wrote:

Maybe having high blood sugar was known for a 100 years,but in no way was type 2 diabetes around 3,500 years ago.
By the way,I never said type one never existed 100 years ago,please do learn how to read.
I believe it’s more of a condition.

Do you have a reading problem?

  1. I never said type 2 was shown to be around 3500 years ago.
    2)strange how I never said anything about type 1 and 100 years ago, re-read it if you would like
    3)I dont care what you think it is

Yes I do believe you have a reading/comprehension problem.
I never said you said that diabetes has been around for 3,500 years.[/quote]

Strange, your post above says

but in no way was type 2 diabetes around 3,500 years ago.

which I never claimed

Does no scientific evidence of plauge victims mean that it didnt happen?

Yes, there are many diseases that result in large quantities of sugar in the urine and blood.
Or maybe you were expecting a full CBC, blood glucose, urinary glucose, keto-acids and DNA analysis in 1700’s?

No, if you want, there was no cases of type 2 diabetes before the mid1930s, as it didnt exist until Himsworth published his first paper differentiating insulin sensitive (type1) and insensitive (type2) diabetes.

I never said it was, your the one who added that into the discussion.

Thats becuase type2 didnt ‘exist’ prior to the end of 1930’s.

ITs hard for somebody in 1700 to write on a subject they dont know what it is. This is why they are small numbers of case reports, or observations of individual cases. A rare unknown disease that presents in a realtively unique way, raised sugar, large quantities of urine yada yada yada

The first mention of a disease that had the same call-sign as diabetes (mellitus or insipidus) was in Egypt in ~1500 BC

~2000AD - ~1500BC = ~3500