OT New Test Predicts Damage from Diabetes

Roger Zoul said:

New test has the potential to be as significant to health care as measuring
cholesterol levels.

Merlin Thomas, of Melbourne's Baker Heart Research Institute, is in the
process of refining a blood test aimed at predicting the likelihood of organ
damage in those with elevated blood-sugar levels, particularly patients with
diabetes.

http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3150

Here is a simpler test. Count the amounts of refined and high-gi carbs
a person eats on average every day. The higher the count the more
likelihood of organ damage. Chart it all like the old weight/height
avreage charts and hand it over to the insurance industry and doctors.

TC

[email hidden] wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: New test has the potential to be as significant to health care as
::: measuring cholesterol levels.
:::
::: Merlin Thomas, of Melbourne's Baker Heart Research Institute, is in
::: the process of refining a blood test aimed at predicting the
::: likelihood of organ damage in those with elevated blood-sugar
::: levels, particularly patients with diabetes.
:::
:::
http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3150
::
:: Here is a simpler test. Count the amounts of refined and high-gi
:: carbs a person eats on average every day. The higher the count the
:: more likelihood of organ damage. Chart it all like the old
:: weight/height avreage charts and hand it over to the insurance
:: industry and doctors.

That's useless, TC. Likelihood and actually damage are completely different
ballgames.

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Here is a simpler test. Count the amounts of refined and high-gi carbs
a person eats on average every day. The higher the count the more
likelihood of organ damage. Chart it all like the old weight/height
avreage charts and hand it over to the insurance industry and doctors.

Only if you make the moronic assumption that there is absolutely no
metabolic variation in the people.

Susan

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Here is a simpler test. Count the amounts of refined and high-gi carbs
a person eats on average every day. The higher the count the more
likelihood of organ damage. Chart it all like the old weight/height
avreage charts and hand it over to the insurance industry and doctors.

Only if you make the moronic assumption that there is absolutely no
metabolic variation in the people.

Susan

That tends to be an unfortunate standard assumption, doesn't it?

Therefore, there is an absolute right way to do things..... Ah, so
satisfying to be absolutely right.

--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

Susan <[email hidden]> wrote:
|| x-no-archive: yes
||
|| [email hidden] wrote:
||
||| Here is a simpler test. Count the amounts of refined and
||| high-gi carbs a person eats on average every day. The higher
||| the count the more likelihood of organ damage. Chart it all
||| like the old weight/height avreage charts and hand it over
||| to the insurance industry and doctors.
|||
||
|| Only if you make the moronic assumption that there is
|| absolutely no metabolic variation in the people.
||
|| Susan

Not as much as some would like to think... A lot more
difference in diet and exercise levels.

--
"Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
-- Perna condita delenda est

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Here is a simpler test. Count the amounts of refined and high-gi carbs
a person eats on average every day. The higher the count the more
likelihood of organ damage. Chart it all like the old weight/height
avreage charts and hand it over to the insurance industry and doctors.

Only if you make the moronic assumption that there is absolutely no
metabolic variation in the people.

Susan

How does my statement assume no metabolic variation in people?
Generally speaking we are all built the same way except for type 1
diabetics and a small percentage of people with other metabolic
conditions.

Are you saying that some people are immune to damage from chronic high
blood sugar levels because of metabolic variations?

TC

Quoted message said:

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Here is a simpler test. Count the amounts of refined and high-gi carbs
a person eats on average every day. The higher the count the more
likelihood of organ damage. Chart it all like the old weight/height
avreage charts and hand it over to the insurance industry and doctors.

Only if you make the moronic assumption that there is absolutely no
metabolic variation in the people.

Susan

How does my statement assume no metabolic variation in people?
Generally speaking we are all built the same way except for type 1
diabetics and a small percentage of people with other metabolic
conditions.

Are you saying that some people are immune to damage from chronic high
blood sugar levels because of metabolic variations?

TC

`

I assuje that you know that a high percentage of the world population is
lactose intolerant?

There are numerous other enzyme related metabolic disorders, besides
just the ones well known for disaccaride metabolism.

--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

Roger Zoul said:

Merlin Thomas, of Melbourne's Baker Heart Research Institute, is in the
process of refining a blood test aimed at predicting the likelihood of organ
damage in those with elevated blood-sugar levels, particularly patients with
diabetes.

http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3150

The test being described here measures AGEs (advanced glycation
endproducts.) These are the bits of glucose that get bound to proteins
and clog up the works.

However, we already have a commonly available test that will also give
you a very good idea of how glycated your proteins might be. It's the
Hb1ac test. It measures the percentage of red blood cells that have
been glycated (i.e. have bits of glucose stuck to them.)

True normal for an Hba1c is between 4.7% and 5.0%. This corresponds to a
blood sugar that is under 100 mg/dl at all times and a fasting blood
sugar close to 85 mg/dl.

Doctors will tell you that your Hba1c is normal when it is well above
the level at which organ damage can occur, but that is because they have
defined "normal" for this test as meaning "Not Diabetic."

However, there is lots of evidence by now that blood-sugar related organ
damage begins at a much lower level than the level currently used to
diagnose diabetes. I've summarized some of the research looking at organ
damage and blood sugar levels at
http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/moreresearch.htm

--Jenny

http://www.geocities.com/lottadata4u/ Type 2 Diabetes info
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Low Carb info

jbuch said:

Quoted message said:

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

[email hidden] wrote:

>Here is a simpler test. Count the amounts of refined and high-gi carbs
>a person eats on average every day. The higher the count the more
>likelihood of organ damage. Chart it all like the old weight/height
>avreage charts and hand it over to the insurance industry and doctors.
>

Only if you make the moronic assumption that there is absolutely no
metabolic variation in the people.

Susan

How does my statement assume no metabolic variation in people?
Generally speaking we are all built the same way except for type 1
diabetics and a small percentage of people with other metabolic
conditions.

Are you saying that some people are immune to damage from chronic high
blood sugar levels because of metabolic variations?

TC

`

I assuje that you know that a high percentage of the world population is
lactose intolerant?

There are numerous other enzyme related metabolic disorders, besides
just the ones well known for disaccaride metabolism.

Of course there are variations. My questions was "How does my statement
assume no metabolic variation in people?" and how does that affect the
validity of my post? It doesn't.

Statistically, there are variations, but are they enough to negate my
statements? Of course not. If there was that much metabolic variation
and my statements were thus rendered invalid, then all textbooks would
be invalid. One would need a textbook for every person if there was
that much metabolic variety. 98% of the population will fit within the
third standard deviation of the bell curve and they all will be similar
enough for any general statement regarding their metabolic functioning
to be correct.

You guys are making the mistake of thinking that someone with
pre-diabetes has a different metabolism than someone who is normal and
that person has a different metabolism than someone with full-blown
diabetes.

Their metabolism function generally the same way except that their
insulin response and their insulin production has been skewed by tghe
damage from excessive carb intake over a long period of time. Their
metabolic systems are the same, their endocrine system are at different
states and have sufferred different degrees of damage.

Their bodies react the same way to foods except that the insulin
resistant pre-diabetic produces more insulin than the norm and the
diabetic has progressed to where the pancreas is unable to produce
enough insulin. Their metabolisms react the same way generally, except
that they are at different stages of damage.

Humans all share similar metabolic systems. That is what defines us as
the same species. We all metabolize carbs, fats and proteins in the
same bio-chemical manners. With a few exceptions like lactose
intolerance which is limited to those foodstuffs that some groups have
had no contact with. This does not negate the fact that humans all have
similar metabolic systems.

TC

[email hidden] wrote:
:: Susan wrote:
::: x-no-archive: yes
:::
::: [email hidden] wrote:
:::
:::: Here is a simpler test. Count the amounts of refined and high-gi
:::: carbs a person eats on average every day. The higher the count the
:::: more likelihood of organ damage. Chart it all like the old
:::: weight/height avreage charts and hand it over to the insurance
:::: industry and doctors.
::::
:::
::: Only if you make the moronic assumption that there is absolutely no
::: metabolic variation in the people.
:::
::: Susan
::
:: How does my statement assume no metabolic variation in people?
:: Generally speaking we are all built the same way except for type 1
:: diabetics and a small percentage of people with other metabolic
:: conditions.
::
:: Are you saying that some people are immune to damage from chronic
:: high blood sugar levels because of metabolic variations?

Some people certainly don't suffer from chronic high blood sugar even when
eating lots of sugar for years. Also, some type 2 diabetics react very
differently to the disease...some, who maintain proper weight and get plenty
of exercise, can consume a lot more sugar with adverse affects than others.

::
:: TC

Roger Zoul said:

[email hidden] wrote:
:: Susan wrote:
::: x-no-archive: yes
:::
::: [email hidden] wrote:
:::
:::: Here is a simpler test. Count the amounts of refined and high-gi
:::: carbs a person eats on average every day. The higher the count the
:::: more likelihood of organ damage. Chart it all like the old
:::: weight/height avreage charts and hand it over to the insurance
:::: industry and doctors.
::::
:::
::: Only if you make the moronic assumption that there is absolutely no
::: metabolic variation in the people.
:::
::: Susan
::
:: How does my statement assume no metabolic variation in people?
:: Generally speaking we are all built the same way except for type 1
:: diabetics and a small percentage of people with other metabolic
:: conditions.
::
:: Are you saying that some people are immune to damage from chronic
:: high blood sugar levels because of metabolic variations?

Some people certainly don't suffer from chronic high blood sugar even when
eating lots of sugar for years.

You don't know that.

Quoted message said:

Also, some type 2 diabetics react very
differently to the disease...some, who maintain proper weight and get plenty
of exercise, can consume a lot more sugar with adverse affects than others.

Most react the same way. And you do not know that some can conume a lot
more sugar than others. You are making a lot of assumptions.

TC

[email hidden] wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: [email hidden] wrote:
::::: Susan wrote:
:::::: x-no-archive: yes
::::::
:::::: [email hidden] wrote:
::::::
::::::: Here is a simpler test. Count the amounts of refined and high-gi
::::::: carbs a person eats on average every day. The higher the count
::::::: the more likelihood of organ damage. Chart it all like the old
::::::: weight/height avreage charts and hand it over to the insurance
::::::: industry and doctors.
:::::::
::::::
:::::: Only if you make the moronic assumption that there is absolutely
:::::: no metabolic variation in the people.
::::::
:::::: Susan
:::::
::::: How does my statement assume no metabolic variation in people?
::::: Generally speaking we are all built the same way except for type 1
::::: diabetics and a small percentage of people with other metabolic
::::: conditions.
:::::
::::: Are you saying that some people are immune to damage from chronic
::::: high blood sugar levels because of metabolic variations?
:::
::: Some people certainly don't suffer from chronic high blood sugar
::: even when eating lots of sugar for years.
::
:: You don't know that.

I don't know that some people don't suffer from chronic high blood sugar
even when eating lots of sugar for years? How about your typical American
who is non-diabetic but is older than 40. I can walk down the hallway and
count them off for you.

::
::: Also, some type 2 diabetics react very
::: differently to the disease...some, who maintain proper weight and
::: get plenty of exercise, can consume a lot more sugar with adverse
::: affects than others.
::
:: Most react the same way.

And what makes you such an expert? Are you diabetic, TC? Are you claiming
that your thousands and thousand of hours of study have given you some
knowledge that the rest of us don't have?

:: And you do not know that some can conume a
:: lot more sugar than others. You are making a lot of assumptions.

I'm not making any assumptions....I must going by my own personal history as
a diabetic. You simply don't know what you're taking about.

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

How does my statement assume no metabolic variation in people?

Your statement assumes that no one has intact pancreatic function.

Quoted message said:

Generally speaking we are all built the same way except for type 1
diabetics and a small percentage of people with other metabolic
conditions.

ROFL!

Quoted message said:

Are you saying that some people are immune to damage from chronic high
blood sugar levels because of metabolic variations?

No, I'm saying that there are people who can consume high carbs and not
*get* high blood sugar levels. Your statement, to be true, would
require that everyone be either IGT or DM.

Susan

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

How does my statement assume no metabolic variation in people?

Your statement assumes that no one has intact pancreatic function.

Quoted message said:

Generally speaking we are all built the same way except for type 1
diabetics and a small percentage of people with other metabolic
conditions.

ROFL!

Quoted message said:

Are you saying that some people are immune to damage from chronic high
blood sugar levels because of metabolic variations?

No, I'm saying that there are people who can consume high carbs and not
*get* high blood sugar levels. Your statement, to be true, would
require that everyone be either IGT or DM.

Susan

Statistically, there are variations, but are they enough to negate my
statements? Of course not. If there was that much metabolic variation
and my statements were thus rendered invalid, then all textbooks would
be invalid. One would need a textbook for every person if there was
that much metabolic variety. 98% of the population will fit within the
third standard deviation of the bell curve and they all will be similar

enough for any general statement regarding their metabolic functioning
to be correct.

You guys are making the mistake of thinking that someone with
pre-diabetes has a different metabolism than someone who is normal and
that person has a different metabolism than someone with full-blown
diabetes.

Their metabolism function generally the same way except that their
insulin response and their insulin production has been skewed by tghe
damage from excessive carb intake over a long period of time. Their
metabolic systems are the same, their endocrine system are at different

states and have sufferred different degrees of damage.

Their bodies react the same way to foods except that the insulin
resistant pre-diabetic produces more insulin than the norm and the
diabetic has progressed to where the pancreas is unable to produce
enough insulin. Their metabolisms react the same way generally, except
that they are at different stages of damage.

Humans all share similar metabolic systems. That is what defines us as
the same species. We all metabolize carbs, fats and proteins in the
same bio-chemical manners. With a few exceptions like lactose
intolerance which is limited to those foodstuffs that some groups have
had no contact with. This does not negate the fact that humans all have

similar metabolic systems.

TC

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Statistically, there are variations, but are they enough to negate my
statements?

YES!!! Ask any diabetic who's tested family members after a high sugar
meal or snack. Non-diabetics and non IGT don't rise above 100 or 105.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course not.

Not for nothing, TC, but you don't even have a clue what normal bg is,
wo I doubt you know [censored] from shinola about the stats here, but I'd be
glad to review your collection of citations.

If there was that much metabolic variation

Quoted message said:

and my statements were thus rendered invalid, then all textbooks would
be invalid.

Which textbooks? Quote from them, please.

One would need a textbook for every person if there was

Quoted message said:

that much metabolic variety. 98% of the population will fit within the
third standard deviation of the bell curve and they all will be similar

enough for any general statement regarding their metabolic functioning
to be correct.

You guys are making the mistake of thinking that someone with
pre-diabetes has a different metabolism than someone who is normal and
that person has a different metabolism than someone with full-blown
diabetes.

Their metabolism function generally the same way except that their
insulin response and their insulin production has been skewed by tghe
damage from excessive carb intake over a long period of time. Their
metabolic systems are the same, their endocrine system are at different

states and have sufferred different degrees of damage.

Their bodies react the same way to foods except that the insulin
resistant pre-diabetic produces more insulin than the norm and the
diabetic has progressed to where the pancreas is unable to produce
enough insulin. Their metabolisms react the same way generally, except
that they are at different stages of damage.

Humans all share similar metabolic systems. That is what defines us as
the same species. We all metabolize carbs, fats and proteins in the
same bio-chemical manners. With a few exceptions like lactose
intolerance which is limited to those foodstuffs that some groups have
had no contact with. This does not negate the fact that humans all have

similar metabolic systems.

TC

You know, you may just be stupid enough that having a computer is
hazardous to your health.

Susan

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Statistically, there are variations, but are they enough to negate my
statements?

YES!!! Ask any diabetic who's tested family members after a high sugar
meal or snack. Non-diabetics and non IGT don't rise above 100 or 105.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course not.

Not for nothing, TC, but you don't even have a clue what normal bg is,
wo I doubt you know [censored] from shinola about the stats here, but I'd be
glad to review your collection of citations.

Normal bg has always been a matter of interpretation. Some authorities
say one number, other authorities say another. The exact number of what
is supposed to be "normal" is irrelevant and of no consequence to this
discussion.

You seem to think that someone with a slightly elevated bgl has a
different metabolism from someone with normal bgl. That is not correct.

Check ANY textbook. They will all generally say the same about
metabolism with the exception that one may have a different number for
what is "normal" bg. Medical practitioners can't agree on what is
normal and what is not, why should we.

We all have the same metabolism.

TC

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Statistically, there are variations, but are they enough to negate my
statements?

YES!!! Ask any diabetic who's tested family members after a high sugar
meal or snack. Non-diabetics and non IGT don't rise above 100 or 105.

Quoted message said:

>Of course not.

Not for nothing, TC, but you don't even have a clue what normal bg is,
wo I doubt you know [censored] from shinola about the stats here, but I'd be
glad to review your collection of citations.

Normal bg has always been a matter of interpretation. Some authorities
say one number, other authorities say another. The exact number of what
is supposed to be "normal" is irrelevant and of no consequence to this
discussion.

You seem to think that someone with a slightly elevated bgl has a
different metabolism from someone with normal bgl. That is not correct.

Check ANY textbook. They will all generally say the same about
metabolism with the exception that one may have a different number for
what is "normal" bg. Medical practitioners can't agree on what is
normal and what is not, why should we.

We all have the same metabolism.

TC

No, we don't. Normal bg is the level at which cellular damage is not
occurring, and that which is found in those with intact pancreatic
function, not by the arbitrary standards promulgated to decide who will
be classified diabetic for insurance or surveillance purposes.

Susan

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

[email hidden] wrote:

>Statistically, there are variations, but are they enough to negate my
>statements?

YES!!! Ask any diabetic who's tested family members after a high sugar
meal or snack. Non-diabetics and non IGT don't rise above 100 or 105.

>>Of course not.

Not for nothing, TC, but you don't even have a clue what normal bg is,
wo I doubt you know [censored] from shinola about the stats here, but I'd be
glad to review your collection of citations.

Normal bg has always been a matter of interpretation. Some authorities
say one number, other authorities say another. The exact number of what
is supposed to be "normal" is irrelevant and of no consequence to this
discussion.

You seem to think that someone with a slightly elevated bgl has a
different metabolism from someone with normal bgl. That is not correct.

Check ANY textbook. They will all generally say the same about
metabolism with the exception that one may have a different number for
what is "normal" bg. Medical practitioners can't agree on what is
normal and what is not, why should we.

We all have the same metabolism.

TC

No, we don't. Normal bg is the level at which cellular damage is not
occurring, and that which is found in those with intact pancreatic
function, not by the arbitrary standards promulgated to decide who will
be classified diabetic for insurance or surveillance purposes.

Susan

Every textbook describes our metabolism as being the same. I challenge
you to actually prove your point with scientific data.

TC

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Every textbook describes our metabolism as being the same. I challenge
you to actually prove your point with scientific data.

TC

ROFL... gitouttahere, now I know you're just fooling around.

I've provided data often, you just don't read it, or you don't
understand it when you try.

Others have provided it, too.

Susan