No, that's very wrong. Prior to the 1920's, diabetes was a death sentence. Most diabetics are just so good at managing it that you aren't very aware of what they are going through. Diabetics frequently die from other diseases which were caused by diabetes, heart disease being one of them (also kidney disease, liver disease, and many many others.)

Environment definitely plays a role. Genes play directly into that, mainly as an adaptation to that environment. Is already well known that if you have relatives with diabetes (of any type) you are more likely to have it, but also statisticians found that Caucasians are least likely to have it, with Asian being higher than most, and Native American (who happen to be mongoloid, just like Asians) having by far the greatest chance of developing it.

And, as recent research turns out, diabetes isn't new to Native Americans. Furthermore, the high glycemic load foods they now eat make the symptoms stick out more, but this is mainly because their evolution centered around diets that had very low glycemic load to begin with (and are foods that Caucasians would more likely starve to death on because they don't provide sufficient caloric needs as our metabolic system isn't equipped to process them the same as natives do.)

http://www.livescience.com/218...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

At any rate, for GP's comments to be true, most diabetics would have to starve themselves to death long before they'd consume few enough sugars to not need insulin. Natives *could* be a different story, but remember that in many cases they literally did starve, and furthermore their metabolic system is more able to deal with that than ours.

No, that's not the problem. Only a half-wit conspiracy theorist dumbass would think they aren't trying to find a cure. The fact that they got here alone speaks volumes about just how badly they want one. What they've discovered is groundbreaking. They didn't choose for diabetes to exist. They also didn't choose for this treatment to only last two days, rather that's just an unfortunate downside of it. If you think it's so damned easy to find a cure, go publish your own damn paper.

Not everybody is involved in a conspiracy to deprive you of your wallet. The fact that you see it that way is entirely your choice to do so, and is probably the reason you feel like shit every day and think everybody is out to make your life suck. If you really hate civilization that bad, go live in a tree, shit in the woods, get a tropical disease, and see just how much better life is without all of the evil drug companies ruining it for you.

Yeah; your cholesterol levels are controlled by your liver. GGP comes off to me as being a dietary fanatic, the likes of which I've seen all too often, and they're kind of annoying because they play armchair general about what everybody shall and shall not eat, meanwhile their knowledge of biology and chemistry tends to be really bad, just like GGP's appears to be (or at least, a very VERY bad understanding of what diabetes is.) I remember one dietary fanatic telling me how his cholesterol was high, so he decided to become a vegetarian. I don't know whether or not he solved that problem, but if he did the vegetarian diet had very little to do with it, but he's just going on being smug anyways. (In fact the Harvard Study vegetarians frequently cite about read meat being "bad" doesn't actually suggest this, instead it shows a link between people with uncontrolled diets and various diseases...but interestingly it also suggests a link between vegetarian diets and high cholesterol, which they never acknowledge.)

In fact, in recent years we've found that dietary cholesterol has very little impact on blood cholesterol, and may even have no impact at all. What we have found to influence it is saturated fats; less of them will reduce your blood cholesterol. More unsaturated fats will also reduce it (i.e. omega-3.) Exercise also effects it. However dietary changes and exercise have been only found to reduce blood cholesterol by about 30% in the best case scenarios. Beyond that, statin therapy is very effective. People who claim to be "naturalists" (ironically none of them can seem to even agree what the word "natural" means) often tell me how I shouldn't be taking these pills, but I take lovastatin and as a result my cholesterol levels are well within normal range whereas before that and my triglycerides were really high (typically tryglicerides are high when you take in too many calories, which given I am losing weight rather quickly rather quickly, that simply can't be the case; the liver doing something it isn't supposed to be doing however would explain it perfectly.) No side effects either.

GGP types also tend to be those anti-GMO, pro organic extremists, which are even more annoying because at the end of the day there is zero conclusive evidence against GMO, and zero evidence that suggests organic is in any way better than anything else (but it certainly costs more!)

Anywho, being overweight in general isn't a good thing, but if you don't have hypertension and some of the other issues that go along with it, you aren't really in danger of anything bad happening any time soon. The main reason I had to lose weight was due to reduced renal function, which was caused by another unrelated problem related to the immune system (specifically, IGAn, which nobody has ever been able to identify the cause of, and it isn't any more prevalent in overweight people than anybody else.) However reduced weight means reduced body mass, which means reduced need for filtration.

I don't understand why you Aussies think this even matters. Do you know how much carbon you guys produce next to China or India? A laughably small amount. You could start building factories tomorrow in the outback that did nothing but spew raw CO2 into the atmosphere and it would take you hundreds of years to catch up to China alone.

If CO2 is to really be reduced the effort falls squarely on large semi-developed countries like China or India. Even the US has already cut back as much as they can, and that without a carbon tax also... we just weren't as stupid as you to pass it to start with.

You guys are just wising up to the reality that carbon taxes are as much a ruse to make people money as anything else. Where do you think "carbon taxes" go anyway...

This is an echo-chamber response: someone on the internet heard something, and keeps repeating it. It's rooted in emotional superiority, and comes from someone with no background in scientific research or statistics.

All attempts to pin obesity on the "that sounds about right" reasons have failed, including exercise and food intake - for both amounts and types of food.

In particular, lab animals grown today are fatter than the ones grown decades ago, despite having the same (and well-documented) diets and exercise. (Source.) Same with pets.

Current opinion holds that there is something in the environment that causes obesity - some agent that wasn't pervasive a couple of decades ago. Over 700 possible causes have been suggested, including your favorite bugaboo (whatever that is). We're slowly going through the options looking for the cause.

No diet will work, even that great "miracle cure" you heard about on Oprah. Lack of exercise doesn't cause it. Diets and exercise regimes work for *some* people because in changing their behaviour they eliminate the causal factor inadvertently - without knowing what it is. It wasn't the diet and it wasn't the exercise.

Try to keep current with scientific theory, otherwise we'll be repeating these old wives tales forever.

Sorry but what you say here is a load of crap. Actually no I'm not sorry, it's just a load of crap said by somebody who doesn't know shit about the condition and just wants to find any old reason to attack their eating habits.

Insulin resistance doesn't magically get cured by eating right and exercising. Yes, you can much better manage the symptoms that way, but ultimately they don't go away. At the end of the day you still have to watch your glycemic load, which doesn't necessarily come from sugary foods. In fact several vegetables can cause hyperglycemia in diabetics. Pretty much the only way to avoid that in most cases is to eat so little that you aren't meeting your daily caloric needs, which means you'd need to starve yourself to death in order to avoid taking insulin.

I don't have diabetes, but I've been way overweight (at one point I weighed 290 pounds) and all of the blood tests I took indicated I was nowhere near being diabetic even at THAT time. Yet many other people who have a much lower BMI than I do even right now (I currently weigh 215) and are even younger than I am have type 2 diabetes. The added weight just makes it that much harder for your body to meet its own insulin needs, so losing weight can help manage the symptoms (and in certain cases eliminate them until your later years in life,) but it will never cure it.

personally with the fuckup? nothing, but his agencies unwillingness to come forward with information when requested (or when it should be common sense to release information) is a joke. I wont blame obama for something that happened before he was born, but how it is handled when it comes to light is his problem as this is a federal agency.

what does obama have to do with this particular instance? nothing (that we know of yet) however "the buck stops uhhh with me"~ obama words, not mine

the problem is that his people (his federal agencies) refuse to be honest about anything. granted we dont know enough about this issue yet to place blame, and it is not something that was his fault as they have been there before he was elected. but the point remains every other day there is some issue at the federal level, and there is a subset of voters who want to give the federal government even more power

he really does. I hated bush (look at my posts at the time of his presidency) but after 6 years of this obamnation, i almost feel sorry for him.

missmeyet.jpg makes so much sense

it seems the federal governments MO these days.
first you lie "it was a movie!!!"
when you get caught, you only admit the small details of what you got caught with "well, it was only a rogue agent, it was not sent down from above"
then you drag it out as long as you can "we are having internal investigations to ensure this isolated incident does not ever happen again"
Then you get caught in more than you initially got caught in "well, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!!!!"
then you make up more lies to cover up the lies that you got caught in to begin with (all while blaming the other political party for witch hunts, eventhough they have been right)

This seems to be the case for the IRS, the DOJ, the FBI, the NSA, the white house etc. I would be more shocked if they told us no, that really was just a single vial, and it be truthful

I disagree. We are not entitled to say that a change in carbon will effect a change in net energy that we can predict using simple measurements. One reason is that a change in carbon causes changes in other features of the atmosphere that have a profound effect on the planet's warming or lack thereof. Climate change is chaotic and, thus far anyway, it's been impossible to predict over the long term.

Check out this article explaining why this is complex. For example, changing the CO2 changes the water vapor in the atmosphere, which will quickly goof up your best intentioned "back of the envelope" calculations.

Maybe you're in a different discussion by now, but many parents ago I posted:

So it's on topic for the discussion _I_ was having. Maybe you are talking to yourself. /just-joking

Not everything. Here's the list so far.

No one is seriously saying there will be a lot less land. Not any time in the next 1000 years. And you can build a lot of seawalls and other countermeasures in 1000 years.