Air pollution plays significant role in diabetes
|
1. does anyone else see the problem with the insulin statement?
2. correlation is not necessarily cause. 3. need to see origibal paper |
This is classic media overspin. Like you said, Ms Arielle, correlation doesn't mean causation. It's impossible for us to assess what the other factors might have contributed, such as economic status, genetic history, and the like.
|
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...80630153740.htm
Quote:
The full-text study from The Lancet is can be read here .. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/...0140-2/fulltext |
ummmm , just thinking out loud here...
diabetes is up obesity is up pollution is up crappy food is up dogs/ family down education is up cancer is up does education cause obesity? fewer dogs cause pollution My "uneducated" eval is that a crappy diet is linked to better education, obesity, diabetes, and no dog......... just kidding just kiddding |
Wow, that's an incredibly convoluted look at how air pollution is related to diabetes.
Surely it couldn't have anything to do with the way that as countries develop a more westernized standard of living, which includes changes such as increases in manufacturing and/or motorized travel (both of which increase air pollution), they are also prone to adopt a westernized diet, due to the sudden availability and affordability of more "fun" food, treat foods, and fast food, while at the same time pushing the western idea of a "healthy" diet, by centering your food choices around carbs - hearthealthywholegrains, starchy veggies, and sugary fruit, severely limiting any kind of animal proteins, and fat intake. Nah, couldn't have anything to do with that at all.:rolleyes: |
I think the media should just stop reporting on observational correlations.
|
It really amazes me that they keep ignoring the elephant in the room, trying to make everyone believe that the real reason there's a problem in the room is there's smudges on the windows, dust bunnies in the corners, and that the walls could be painted a more cheerful color.
|
Quote:
Worst thing I see with it is that it's in quotes. That means the fine folk at Yahoo didn't make it up themselves. Somebody in the comments section asks if anybody's starting to see a similarity between Yahoo news and the Daily Mail. Not accidental. A lot of these stories are written up by journalism students at the universities the studies were done at, and they'll get the science wrong. Then it's quoted and it sounds like that's what the actual researchers were saying. ScienceDaily at least says, the information here all came from the University press release. The Daily Mail and their ilk throw quotation marks around, like they went around and did interviews or something, it's not really enough to just put quotes, what the heck are you quoting? |
I can see air pollution having a role just through asthma-disturbed sleep. Pretending you can put a number on some of this stuff is just nonsense.
|
:thud: ........
where is that emoji?????? Maybe THIS is why my mother's endless doctors tell her to never look to the internet.......... for once I would agree with her docs. But just this once. Other wise, IMO get eduated and be able to judge the validity of "stuff" on the internet. |
Carbohydrates are the main cause of Type II diabetes. There fixed it for them.
|
Quote:
So that's the plausibility argument. It's wrong, so wrong. With diabetes type 2, there's both hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia. There's too much insulin. How could there be both reduced insulin production and too much insulin? OK, lemme just put this into the proper perspective for all of us dumasses of the world. Let's say there's too much pollution, this then cause reduced tyres production and that's why there's too many cars not running properly, but simultaneously these same cars are stuck with too many tyres. (If we also analogize blood glucose, we could say they're also stuck with too much gasoline, which would take care of itself if only all those cars started running properly) Even us, dumasses of the world, can see this is completely retarded. Now let's use my paradigm to offer an alternative plausibility argument. Let's say pollution doesn't reduce insulin production (otherwise implying the pancreas is affected), but instead reduces insulin degradation at the liver. Now we got something that can actually explain why there's too much insulin. As a side note, why do experts never ever tell us about the hyperinsulinemia in diabetes type 2? Maybe they just don't understand it like that. Maybe for them, hyperinsulinemia is related to blood glucose in such a way that if BG drops too low, that's how hyperinsulinemia is determined. With diabetes type 2, BG never drops too low, it's always too high, so there can't be hyperinsulinemia. See? Furthermore, one possible treatment for really bad diabetes type 2 is insulin injections. Maybe for them, no matter how much insulin there is, even if there's tons of it already, there's just not enough of it to get the job done. And maybe for them, that's the extent of their knowledge about insulin, and that's why we get retarded plausibility arguments like in the article. |
Quote:
I'm pretty sure that's the problem - they don't see it as a situation where there's already excessive amounts of insulin, but still not enough to do the job of pushing excess blood sugar into your cells. I think they see it as simply a lack of insulin - in other words, they don't understand the difference between T1 and T2. I don't think true diabetes "experts" misunderstand this concept though. I suspect what we end up reading has more to do with the media interpreting it to mean that because diabetes requires insulin injections, there's apparently not enough insulin to begin with, especially when they hear repeatedly that you NEEEEEEED so many carbs just to support brain function, so they have no choice but to eat all those carbs, and shoot up with insulin, in order to force that blood sugar into their brain cells. On the other hand, it's the dieticians and far too many diabetes "experts" who are the ones claiming you NEEEEEEEEED so many carbs to support brain function, never thinking about the fact that yeah, there's tons of insulin there, just not nearly enough to take care of all the carbs you're pushing the diabetic to eat, much less the amount that the typical diabetic eats, simply because they're told they can cover it with more and more insulin. No wonder the media is confused. |
If this study wasn’t ludicrous enough, another follows on its heels.
Overtime work may increase diabetes risk in women. So if a woman works a demanding job in a big city, you double the diabetesrisk, although what I wanted to say is not allowed. :lol: https://wtop.com/health-fitness/201...-risk-in-women/ |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:57. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.