Understanding Glucose

Ah, that makes sense now! As I originally read it, the post didn’t seem to match up with many other things you’ve said. But applied specifically, it does.

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Thank You Mertdawg as I misspoke.
It is people that are pre-disposed and have been diagnosed with diabetes that get me flustered by not taking control of their dietary and exercise habits and choices.

The reason for my disdain is in the cost of health care insurance.
I would not expect to pay as little in premiums as say an Olympic or Elite athlete, but when 65% of the motherfuckers in my age group
are overweight/ obese/ morbidly obese and they drive insurance through the roof where I cannot get reasonable coverage…yeah, i’m pissed.

apologies to all for threadjack.

I’ll stfu now…[/quote]

I’ve heard people say the the government should step in and tax people for things that cause diabetes, or give tax breaks to people who do certain things, or weigh a certain amount (they can’t actually treat people differently for having diabetes because it is classified as a disability).

But on the other hand, it was the government’s diabetes generating dietary recommendations and subsidies for diabetes promoting foods that largely caused the upshoot in diabetes in the first place. The AMA still recommends a high complex carbohydrate diet for diabetes with about 500 grams of carbs a day built into their formulas, though in private diabetes nutritionists have been moving their recommendations down, “around 50%” “around 40%” and some are whispering “around 30%”.

The problem is that AMA is dead set on <30% fat! and they firmly believe that 10-15% protein is the top mark that people should have. That leaves at least 55% to fill out with carbs.

I recently found out that the three generations directly before me had type II in my family. My great grandfather, my grandfather, my uncle, and probably my dad who never got a high enough fasting blood sugar or A1C to be diagnosed (I think he was 101 fasting and 5.7 A1C and he was large enough that his fasting probably came down due to being absorbed by tissues slowly over a long period). He had neuropathy and died of a foot staff infection.

They were largely overweight though, or ate poorly and my grandpa and great grandpa smoked a lot. They also ate a lot of sugar and drank. They also lived fairly long. My Grandpa survived 2 heart attacks and lived to 75 without any kidney, eye or foot problems. My dad presented as healthy until he got an infection. My uncle was overweight but he was physically active and he’s alive at 67, though he has autoimmune problems coincidentally.

It is odd that my son has type I. I only have a weird glucose tolerance test where I peak twice which can be a sign of insulin resistance, but fortunately I just feel so much better on a 25% carb diet, and I’ve built a lot of muscle. I’d like to get my A1C down to 5.1-5.3.

It would be odd if my son’s type I will keep him from getting type II because he eats well know. He also peaks like a type II diabetic, peaking at 90 minutes to two hours rather than 30-50 minutes like type I diabetics, but that’s probably because he has 70-90% function at this time. I found it odd though that I basically have normal (under 100) blood sugar after an hour, but that at 2 hours if I eat a lot of carbs it does up over 130 which I have read may mean that your pancrease is out of insulin when the liver starts putting glucose into the blood in the second stage after eating. If I eat an isocaloric meal I only peak once low (around 120) at 45 minutes and just go down from there, eventually to 70-80, but if I eat high carbs I get the double bump. Anyway I’ve also read that the 2 hour is a better sign of type II, or prediabetes than the 1 hour because people will just dump a huge load of insulin to clear the initial spike, but they don’t have any left to handle the liver dump around 2 hours, or to supress the liver from dumping it.

But I clear the 2 hour bump back to 90 in half an hour so I’ve got insulin left, I just seem to have a glucagon or cortisol surge at 2 hours that tells my liver to get rid of the sugar it just started to store.

Again non of this matters much because I didn’t go much over 140 at any point, and I had been low carbing for several days leading up which invalidates the test by producing highs especially at the 2 hour mark.

Anyone know if there is a link between APO-E genotypes and diabetes. I’ve read about them from a cholesterol/heart disease book, but it seems to affect how a person reacts to macro nutrients.

There are four major things which affect the potential toxic impact of ingested sugar 1) Amount of carbs (which has been discussed.) 2) Cumulative damaging effect of prior assaults (highly individualized) 3) The level of sugar reserves in the body prior to the meal, and or the amount/intensity of exercise performed around that same time 4) To a lesser extent, but also important long term, is the amount of antioxidants in the diet (many antioxidants protect the body’s cells (eg liver cells) from the damaging effects of toxic sugar overload.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Anyone know if there is a link between APO-E genotypes and diabetes. I’ve read about them from a cholesterol/heart disease book, but it seems to affect how a person reacts to macro nutrients.[/quote]
Not much is known, but this recent study:

The good news is that, in fact, while it appears those with the allele have a higher risk for other diseases (and risk factors for disease), it actually appears that those with the allele are protected against diabetes:

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
There are four major things which affect the potential toxic impact of ingested sugar 1) Amount of carbs (which has been discussed.) 2) Cumulative damaging effect of prior assaults (highly individualized) 3) The level of sugar reserves in the body prior to the meal, and or the amount/intensity of exercise performed around that same time 4) To a lesser extent, but also important long term, is the amount of antioxidants in the diet (many antioxidants protect the body’s cells (eg liver cells) from the damaging effects of toxic sugar overload.[/quote]

Excellent points, but I would add this. If the sugar is consumed with foods that delay GI, the peak amount in the blood at any one time can be reduced. I have read that it takes the same amount of insulin to clear the same amount of carbs no matter how fast they enter, but if the sugar enters the blood over 90 minutes instead of 30 minutes, then brain activity and some non-insulin mediated mechanisms can use it up. It is complex here though because while consuming fat with sugar can slow the absorption, MCTs stimulate the liver to release glucose (in effect making it insulin resistant) and FFAs in the blood reduce the insulin sensitivity of other tissues.

Also glycated and oxidized compounds in the blood have a compound effect on acute damage. If you already have a large amount of oxidized triglycerides from high linoleic acid in the diet, or if you have glycated blood materials from chronically higher than normal blood sugar, then I believe that a short term blood sugar of 140+ may be worse than for someone who does not also have to deal with oxidized triglycerides and various glycated blood materials.

Also by the way the rate of glycation caused by high blood sugar rises at an increasing rate with higher acute blood sugar. Being 140 for one hour hypothetically then seems to correlate to more glycation than being at 120 for 2 hours.

mertdawg, FULLY agree that the original Food Pyramid did much more harm than any possible good !
Then the second version (fucking uselss v.2) came out and it was even more atrocious !

What I was alluding to is how someones health insurance payment should be based on That Person, not
lumped together with all the other Weebles Wobble but that wont fall down Fat Assed MotherFuckers out there !