Hmmm...
This issue of insulin and weight gain and the problem of weight
conscious Type I women cutting back on their  insulin to hazardous
consequences makes me think about Dr. Bernstein's writings on alpha
lipoic acid and its insulin mimetic properties.

According to Bernstein, ALA mimics the action of insulin, particularly
if taken with evening primrose oil (gamma linolenic acid). For Type I's
and all those injecting insulin, sufficient doses of the two supplements
will lower blood sugar and reduce the need for insulin injections by
about 30%, according to his calculations and experience. Insulin users
must titrate their dosages when beginning ALA and EPO  or risk hypoglycemia.

The interesting point of this is that ALA's mimicking of insulin
involves transporting blood glucose into the muscle tissues but
***without entailing fat storage.***

So how safe is ALA plus EPO? Pretty safe apparently, given its long
record of use, and with many side benefits:  ALA is a potent
anti-oxident being taken, according to Bernstein, by cardiologists who
were previously taking vitamin E.  Bernstein is a Type I and takes ALA
and EPO himself. ALA and EPO are also effective for many people with
neuropathy pain. There is evidence that ALA and EPO work directly on the
pathology of oxidative stress which gives rise to diabetic neuropathy.
My own physician takes ALA and EPO and has her family do the same. Her
husband, also a physician as well as a Type II takes these supplements.

Since I've been using ALA and EPO for my neuropathy, I've significantly
reduced my total daily dosage of insulin and have lost weight. I should
add, though, that I am seriously restricting fast carbs at the same time
and continuing my daily exercise.

Diabetes is not well understod,  the body is a very complex
thing.  That leads to so many things  to be put out there that
may have no basis n fact.

I have never seen an intellgent person that is arrogant.

Real science has a way of making them a bit humble.

Bar room bums always have firm answers. They read them in
Popular Mechanics.

For this reason, it is also smarter for overweight T1 diabetics to eat
less, down to the right amount:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart

Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be euglycemic... be blessed:

http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthy

Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Swordbearer for the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Sword

I read this first on a different site which gives slightly
different information from the study:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/98893.php
You will find the abstract of the original here:
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/dc07-2026v1

On my first reading of it I couldn't help seeing certain
parallels to the recent ACCORD headlines. By that I mean
that I would draw rather different conclusions from the data
than those arrived at by the researchers and the media.

Some snippets from the "medical news today" report:

"Thirty percent of the subjects reported restricting their
insulin intake at the study's outset. Frequency of the
behavior appears to influence mortality risk.
Insulin-restricting women who died had reported more
frequent insulin restriction and reported more eating
disorder symptoms at the study's outset than those
insulin-restrictors who were still living at study's end."

"This study's findings strongly suggest that insulin
restriction and related eating disorder behaviors may be
unique barriers to achieving optimal diabetes management,
Goebel-Fabbri said."

Chicken, egg, which came first?

Surely this report's headline could just as easily have been
"female Type 1 diabetics with eating disorders have a higher
risk of death than those who do not". The insulin
restriction could be a symptom of the eating disorder, not5
the other way around, so the real problem could be the
disorder, not insulin restriction. Particularly when you
note this: "Based on multivariate Cox regression analysis,
insulin restriction conveyed a three-fold increased risk of
mortality after controlling for baseline age, BMI, and
HbA1c." If A1c was the same, then restricted or otherwise it
would appear that the blood glucose effects may have been
similar. Or were they? No comment on differences in spike
amplitude differences despite similar A1c were made.

Only a lateral thought, but I understand that adolescence is
the period when females are most likely to develop eating
disorders. And, unlike type 2's, many type 1's are diagnosed
prior to or during adolescence. I wonder if the researchers
included "age at diagnosis" in their data and whether lower
diagnosis age was also related to the study subjects with
eating disorders and insulin restriction.

As a digression, no-one in the study or the journalists have
linked these two pieces of data. To me they stand out:

"Mean BMI was 25kg/m2 and mean HbA1c was 7.9%."

"Mean age of death was younger for insulin restrictors (45
vs. 58 years"

Excess weight was obviously not a factor despite the eating
disorders. 45 is far too young, but so is 58. And from my
type 2 viewpoint 7.9 is far too high for a diabetic of any
type.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com
Latest: Motivation, Likes and Dislikes

interesting article, given that it
is specific to type-1 women

i did find it interesting that it is
true for type-1 women, who i've always
thought tended to be thin!  but as we
all know, women in general are crazy
about body weight

... but you have to read it carefully.  the key
statement is buried in the middle:

<" ... But shortchanging insulin doses means
  glucose levels are not controlled and, ...,
  persistently high blood glucose levels lead
  to serious complications, including eye and
  kidney trouble, and even death.">

fwiw, over the years, i've lowered my insulin
levels a number of times (to lose weight).
the key is that i made sure to keep my blood
sugars under control

bill t1 since '57