Sting, VLC associated with what some people* call insulin resistance is a very commonly observed phenomenon. I can assure you it is not just Slacker and me, or some very unusual reaction.
*I think it is a big assumption to call the higher blood sugars insulin resistance. I just call them higher blood sugars and get on with what needs to be done to have normal blood sugar.
ETA: I also think this muscle rehabilitation model would need some serious science to back it up. If one is going to claim a model, it needs proof. I'm find saying I don't know why people's fasting BS goes up when they eat VLC. You don't need to know why to know what you need to do to fix it.
[QUOTE=sting;1226376]dilberryhoundog why do you think that BS and muscles are the same? OK we can assume they work the same way but what if they don't, where's the proof that they do, ones a ripped muscle the other is blood sugar.
See if your not diabetic and don't test every day maybe you could have a different view, not saying its wrong but it could be.[/QUOTE]
Blood sugar and muscles are completely different. One is body tissue the other is energy, one uses the other.
I was looking at comparisons between injured body tissue and injured body tissue.
Looking at blood sugar is like saying: flood heights went to 10 meters then fell to 7m then levelled off at 5m. Flood heights tell us we have a problem, (which we can usually tell anyway from water being effin everywhere). What we want to find out is what broke to cause the flood (did a dam burst, levee bank fail) and how do we fix it.
Same goes for diabetes, BS tells us we got a problem, it doesn't tell us what it is and how we fix it.
Sent from my iPhone using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app
There's a member on the diabetes forum who has been a diabetic for 60+ years has controlled it most of the time, still today he has to eat only foods which don't spike his BS.
Some of the elder ones on that site who have been diabetics for decades still now avoid fruits that make them spike badly, because they send them over the top, and they been controlling the foods they eat for years, so you think if they allowed some fruits in slowly that maybe their spikes wouldn't be so high? maybe..not sure.
This is what i tried to ask them but anytime you do ask or try and bring some discussion about it, the thread gets closed, its like they think what do you know punk, we been doing this for decades, what you think we haven't tried or whatever.
One thing i know is they always state that after a weeks months of eating properly and bringing the BS numbers down, it only takes one night eating the wrong foods and their numbers are all messed up for the next days/weeks.
I actually started a thread asking them this, how many days/weeks do they see BS numbers stay high even after one meal, just to see if it was ok to have a piece of fruit sometimes, They closed the thread.
For the sake of transparency you should have an explanation from whoever closed the thread.
[QUOTE=MaceyUK;1226434]For the sake of transparency you should have an explanation from whoever closed the thread.[/QUOTE]
I asked the mods they never replied instead just banned me
OK who here asked the question we be discussing here on the diabetes forum lol?
[url=http://www.diabetesforum.com/diabetes-diet-nutrition/16470-carb-intake-bg-function.html]Carb intake to BG function.[/url]
I don't think injured organs always have the same ability to regenerate that muscle tissue has. If you have no beta cells you aren't going to suddenly grow them in the presence of slightly elevated blood sugar. If it was that easy, diabetes would be curable rather than simply treatable.
[QUOTE=MaceyUK;1226235]If it were me (thank God it isn't) I wouldn't feel the need to reintroduce sugar into my diet. I suppose the mechanism would be that pancreatic beta cells can and do recover so you should give them something to do but then again there's a small amount of carbohydrate in green leafies and berries that will keep them ticking over...[/QUOTE]
Then you'll never get better. You need sugar to become better. You have to slowly ramp up consumption.
Again, meat generates more insulin than carbohydrate in general. This is an energy management issue.
Link [url=http://www.newswise.com/articles/insulin-resistance-linked-to-weaker-bones]Insulin Resistance Linked to Weaker Bones[/url]
Type 2 diabetes is the result of insulin resistance, which causes cells to react improperly to the insulin that is secreted. Normally, insulin helps regulate sugar, or glucose, concentrations in the blood. With insulin resistance, the pancreas produces increased amounts of the hormone to compensate. This leads to abnormally high levels of insulin in the blood, or hyperinsulinemia.
In turn, hyperinsulinemia increases the risk of other diseases. Left unchecked, it can cause high blood pressure, obesity and other serious complications. Together, these conditions are known as metabolic syndrome, which greatly increases the risk of heart disease and stroke.
In addition, type 2 diabetes is linked to a greater risk of bone fractures, even though bone-mineral density often is higher among diabetics, compared to non-diabetics. To assess the effects of insulin resistance on bone strength, researchers correlated bone strength relative to load with the level of insulin resistance.
They found that bone strength decreased by 10 to 14 percent every time insulin resistance doubled. This decrease in bone strength corresponded to high insulin levels in the blood, rather than high blood-sugar concentrations.
Below is a cross post
[QUOTE]The concentrations of intracellular TP(INT) and MG were significantly elevated in erythrocytes from diabetic patients. Normalisation of either TP(INT) or MG to intracellular glucose concentration (nmol glucose/mgHb) confirmed that erythrocytes from diabetic patients accumulated more reactive metabolites than did those from healthy controls.
Diabetic patients can be characterised by an increased formation of TP(INT) and MG. The 25-fold increase of MG in type 1 and the 15-fold increase in type 2 diabetes, together with a several-fold increase in TP(INT) and decreased glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase activity even under normal glucose conditions, imply that normalising glucose level cannot completely prevent late diabetic complications until this acquired error of metabolism has been restored.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Translation: dibetics have hugely increased amounts of MG and decreases in the enzymatic process which de-toxifies it (within cells). This condition is much more severe in T1s than in T2s.
Did you get that last part? Completely controlling blood sugar levels is not enough to prevent complications. "Eat to your meter" while much better than the "binge and medicate" approach does not address the matter in a comprehensive manner. BLOOD SUGAR CONTROL EVEN IF PERFECT IS NOT ENOUGH. Clearly, as we each look for what "works" we need a more comprehensive definition of what "works" means!
So, what does this mean for treatment? Well, as I see it there are two choices. 1) Find a way to repair the "acquired error of metabolism" mentioned in that last abstract, or 2) Metabolize a LOT less glucose and thereby produce less MG and hopefully diminish or eliminate the harm. This is where we should be thankful that ketosis exists. It IS actually possible to wean 95% of your cells basically OFF glucose and train them to derive their energy from FFAs and ketones instead. Neither of these alternative energy pathways produce methylglyoxal.
Number 1) would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. Meanwhile, it seems clear that number 2) is the most and best we can do for now. Of course, the big money will ONLY focus on 1) and continue to oppose 2) as a threat to forecasted profits should they solve the puzzle. My hope is that those of us who pursue 2) won't even need 1) even if they eventually succeed and get their patent.
This issue is NOT elevated serum glucose. Which makes sense because a) this symptom only appears very late in the game and 2) even complete control of this symptom appears not to prevent EITHER progression or complications. Getting the glucose out of circulation and accepted by the cells via exercise, insulin, medications to reduce IR or any other means is hardly a solution - it only increases intracellular MG production, advancing the disease and its complcations (in spite of joyful meter readings). Insulin resistance as DEFENSE MECHANISM not disease attempting to protect your cells from further poisoning with MG. Fighting it is NOT a good idea.
Clearly, elevated BG is worse than normal BG, but the real issue here is the sum total of glucose being USED. Therefore, I have made this my focus: take all steps possible to reduce glucose utilization all around while maintaining good health via its alternatives at the cellular level. BG readings are secondary. Mine are actually slightly higher (at least moring reading) when I'm doing my best at minimizing glucose than they are when I "slip" a little.
Food for thought (pun intended).[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=sbhikes;1226486]I don't think injured organs always have the same ability to regenerate that muscle tissue has. If you have no beta cells you aren't going to suddenly grow them in the presence of slightly elevated blood sugar. If it was that easy, diabetes would be curable rather than simply treatable.[/QUOTE]
this is where beta cell transplants may well come in. Obviously,though, if the person doesn't achieve and maintain a 'normal' profile after transplantation they'll die too