Think about that again as the weight comes off with normal blood sugars.

I don't believe excess weight was a particularly contributory factor for my
diabetes; I'm certain uncontrolled diabetes made it easier to put weight on
and made it impossible to take it off.

Having a dicky thyroid didn't help either.

Nicky.

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:37:03 GMT, "Yolande Smith"
<Yolande@ntlworld.com> Huffed and Puffed the following into the
madness of usenet:

the NHS nurses were wrong, but that is not surprising.  It sounds like
you were a typical type 2 diabetic.  You developed insulin resistance
and as a result started gaining weight, and as a result of that the
insulin resistance increased and again so did the weight gain.  Until
diagnosis and a change in diet and or the addition in meds.  Allowing
you to reduce BG and reduce insulin resistance and then start to lose
the weight.

What they describe as a "balanced diet regime" is probably far too
high in carbs for a type 2 diabetic and may even be questionable for a
non-diabetic at your age.

by the way you are cross posting to 2 separate diabetes groups. ASD
(alt.support.diabetes) and ASDUK (alt.support.diabetes.uk)  there are
some differences between the groups but as far as I know neither
supports the idea of blaming the individual for something that is
beyond their control.  Hint if weight were the cause of type 2
diabetes, every over weight person on the planet would be type 2. That
is simply not the case.  Genetics still plays a deciding role in who
becomes and does not become a diabetic.  Weight is only a contributing
factor and symptom, not "the" cause.  Anyone in the medical profession
who believes that weight is "the" cause as your NHS nurses appear to
should get another job say in something like waste disposable, at
least then they would feel comfortable working with the materials they
normally live with in their heads.

Hence my [and others] lack of enthusiasm for most of that
ilk. However their fault is in not furthering their
education but just accepting what has been spoon fed to
them.

I s'pose many would have viewed my activities in the early
days as being fanatical. But as they say 'the proof of the
pudding is in the toilet'. [It worked for me simply as a
device for enlightenment]

The sad fact is that this is the case. Well so far as I have
experienced in my locality.

no it is definately not.

I'm becoming confused - but that happens easily - I think
you may have misunderstood my comment on Pete's comment. By
the time a thread goes through a few posts the original
emphasis can change.

However, I certainly agree with your final comments.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 2x500mg

Hi Yolande. The NHS nurses you describe are simply ignorant.
       There is a spectrum of insulin resistance which runs from the fairly
innocuous Syndrome X on the far left, through [dys]metabolic syndrome and on
to type 2 diabetes at the far right side of the spectrum.
       Insulin resistance starves our muscles and liver of glucose, so
people who are insulin resistant feel bad much of the time. The more insulin
resistant they are, the worse they feel. Most insulin resistant people soon
learn that they can chase those bad feelings away by eating, and especially
by eating carbohydrates.
       If you are both rich and insulin resistant, you can spend time at
health resorts, hire personal nutritionists, and probably cope with your
insulin resistance pretty well. If you are an ordinary person with a job to
go to, or children to take care of, you will often feel like you just can't
cope for another five minutes without a soda, a candy bar, a banana, etc.
The extra carbohydrates raise your blood sugar so high that a little extra
glucose gets into your liver and muscles and you feel capable of dealing
with life again for a short while.
       When an insulin resistant person forces her glucose high enough to
cope with life for another hour or two, some of that extra glucose is
converted to fat. Insulin resistant people tend to burn more fat and less
glucose, but they never burn as much fat as they gain.
       Cruelly, it turns out that burning more fat year after year poisons
our liver and muscle cells with oxidized fat. The oxidized fat then makes us
more insulin resistant. This starts a vicious cycle that very few people are
able to break out of. Gluttony and will power are not issues in this
process.
       If insulin resistant people live long enough, they will be come type
2 diabetics--most, however, die of something else first. Russ Farris
http://www.potbellysyndrome.com
=======================

As far as I recall his theory took several years to be accepted, but
nobody was ever ostracised. It's the way science works. Someone puts up
a theory and everyone else tries to shoot it down. If they fail it gets
accepted as probably true. With Helicobacter and ulcers the system
worked perfectly. If you want to criticise the system find failures not
successes.

Well, yes. The system has been carefully designed over several hundred
years to do just that.

You would be mistaken in thinking that there's not much history of
science material on my bookshelves, there has been some since I became a
scientist after reading a biography of Faraday at about the age of
eight. I've done applied research in biochemistry, electronic
engineering, metrology and my guess is that I'll end up doing research
in management theory.

There are certainly theories that took years perhaps even centuries to
be accepted. Evolution is still not universally accepted. But most
theories get proposed, debated and either accepted or rejected without
the man in the street either knowing or caring very much.

But the theories that do affect the man in the street are probably going
to be harder to prove; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
That's how the scientific system has worked, mostly successfully, since
at least the inception of the Royal Society. Pasteur's theories were
mocked for years. But that isn't a failing of the scientific method or
its practise, it is an example of its success. Proposed theories are
roundly criticised and if they succeed they get accepted.

With 20:20 hindsight it's easy to point to some theories that took a
long time to be accepted. But those theories are self-selecting. For you
to quote them they need to meet several criteria. They have to have been
accepted as true, they have to have had active opposition, and they have
to have been publicised well enough to appear in the books on the
history of science, they have to have entered the popular consciousness
so that they resonate with the people who hear your comments. All of
that makes them more visible than all of the other theories that were
accepted with little or no comment and perhaps only token opposition.

So yes, Pasteur did face a lot of opposition, and a tabloid journalist
would build a great human-interest story about that, while ignoring
every other story that couldn't be used to support his point. It's true
that Pasteur's theory was derided for years. It's true, but I think it
is misleading to quote it selectively as an example.

[...]

Contradictory evidence usually does presage some form of revolutionary
change, which is quite predictable. I think it always presages a
revolutionary change or a revelation of scientific fraud.

There is a significant amount of research that has produced repeatable
results. But the fact that they appear contradictory is an artefact of
the state of our knowledge. We do not have a Theory of Everything that
explains all of the observations. The absence of such a theory is a
prerequisite for the evidence to be classified as contradictory.

If all of the evidence was seen as consistent it would have been because
there was already a theory that predicted it. So yes there may be a
scientific revolution in the offing, but it is a predictable and routine
revolution. Predicting it, if all of the evidence is genuine, is
trivially easy.

Chris Malcolm wrote:.

I wonder how the openness of the web will impact the process that Kuhn
described so well.

Just today, for example, I saw an article in the mainstream media
pointing to a bunch of studies that make it very clear that the high
intake of sodas filled with high fructose corn syrup is a major reason
for the so-called obesity epidemic because unlike sucrose high fructose
corn syrup doesn't turn off hunger signals. The researchers quoted came
from Harvard and a bunch of similar "name brand" institutions and made
it sound like this once fringe idea had become mainstream doctrine. (The
article also gave equal space to the apologists for the soda industry,
which could be the subject of a whole nother thread).

But what struck me was that I'd read speculations about sodas containing
high fructose corn syrup being linked to the obesity epidemic least 5
years ago online along with well-reasoned arguments comparing the
incidence of obesity before and after sugar had been replaced with corn
syrup (and the politics of why that happened.) Others also mentioned
that in some parts of Europe sodas still were made with sugar and that
obesity was not as prevalent there.

Does the web discussion of these topics somehow leak through? We all
know that there are hundreds of readers for everyone who posts online.

In a similar manner, the diet advice that has helped us diabetics get
control was being posted online 7 years ago, at a time when those of us
who raised the topic were routinely accused of attempting to murder
diabetics. But the important thing is that our experiences and our logic
was available, and I think it might be possible that the public
discussion has had an impact on people more plugged into the science
mainstream.

What do you think?
to any thinking person who was reading the groups.

Granted that the scientists still have their rigid hierarchies and
lineages to slow them down, but even so, just the fact that ideas are
out in public and being discussed at levels that never happened within
the public before (where could I have found anyone to discuss nutrition
with at Quentin's level in my small rural village without the Internet?)

--Jenny

http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes  Diabetes Info

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/newlydiagnosed.htm Get Your Blood
Sugar Under Control

I am sorry, but you are WRONG
Nutrition studies are almost university worthless, and, the inevitable
results, after many many years of studies is that, except for the
simplest items, all diet changes are meaningless.  I am afraid I can't
find the cite at the moment, but there is some serious mathematical work
on the invalidity of diet studies in general.

We are full of the idiotic conclusions drawn from diet studies.
1) Chloresteral in your diet is bad - WRONG
2) Fiber in your diet helps prevent [insert here]  - NOT
3) A low fat diet prevents [insert here] - in a pigs eye
I could go on, but why bother

Yes, it SEEMS that trans fats may not be good for you, but the evidence
is VERY thin.  And, of course, it IS clear that deficiencies in lots of
things, from salt to trace elements,  WILL not be good for you.

ROFL!  I'm gonna need a bowl of virtual popcorn to watch this one.  :-)

Susan