If diabetes type 2 is not a symptom of carbohydrate poisoning (perhaps exacerbated by other conditions such as infections, inflammation or other kinds of poisoning like arsenic for example), then what's the cause?
It's obviously not genetic. Our genes have not changed that much. It could be epigenetic but then that's just another way of saying it's some kind of poisoning or deficiency, but the poisoning was done by our parents, we just inherited the symptoms. The point is that there is a cause. Things don't just happen, diabetes type 2 included.
But then not everybody develops diabetes type 2 by eating tons of carbs. And when we go low-carb, we cut all carbs, not just some of them. So if it's just a symptom of carbohydrate poisoning, it could be due to only some kinds of carbs, like wheat for example. Or some kinds of carbs make us diabetic more quickly or at a lower dose than others, like wheat for example. To use my favorite analogy, if diabetes is like banging one's thumb with a hammer repetitively, then those who don't suffer from that could have such a hard thumb that it would require a really big hammer for a much longer period of time to make a dent, but we'd eventually make that dent.
If I use my own understanding of diabetes as merely one of many symptoms of carbohydrate poisoning, then those who don't develop diabetes would surely develop a different symptom, though it's anybody's guess what that's going to be specifically. Here again it might be a question of the kinds of carbs.
If diabetes type 2 is a disorder, there must be a cause. Obesity is also a disorder, a disorder of excess fat accumulation. We understand the mechanisms, we understand the causes, we understand not everybody grows fat, we understand the cure too. The cure in this case is a permanent change in our carbohydrate intake. Add back carbs and obesity comes raging back. With obesity, here too there are other things that can exacerbate the condition. After all, obesity is not created only by eating carbs. For example some drugs make us fat through the same mechanisms.
With infections for example, the cure is to eliminate the pathogen with antibiotics. The effect is permanent, unless and until the pathogen returns. Until the cause returns. From that point of view, there is no difference between a cure for infections and a cure for diabetes type 2. The cause must be removed. The effect must be permanent. If the treatment must also be permanent for the effect to be permanent, then that's how it's cured. But it is still cured. Unless and until the cause returns.
If we believe instead that low-carb merely hides diabetes, then we have to ask why would it do that. And again there must be a cause. The obvious answer is that carbs cause blood glucose to rise, insulin to rise, insulin resistance to rise, and merely exacerbate the condition, not cause it in the first place. But carbs cause blood glucose to rise, insulin to rise, insulin resistance to rise, in everybody, not just those who develop diabetes. And the way we measure diabetes involves a time-lapse whereby those who surpass it are diabetic, those who don't aren't. But then when somebody eats more carbs, this time-lapse also increases by comparison. This means if the OGTT test was done with a variable amount of glucose solution, then everybody could be diagnosed with diabetes if the dose was large enough for each and everyone of us. In a way, this means the cause of diabetes is glucose itself. This means the cause of diabetes as measured by the OGTT test, is the OGTT test itself.
*In science, this would be a variation of the observer effect. With the OGTT test, the observation tool interferes with the target of our observation. Besides the obvious paradox of introducing a toxic substance to test for a condition that makes this substance toxic in the first place.
Most of you would find it wrong that a doctor would advise his patients to eat 300g of carbs if they were diabetic, am I right? It just doesn't make sense that a doctor would advise his patient to do something that will most certainly and knowingly exacerbate or worsen his condition. For a broken leg for example, a doctor wouldn't advise his patient to go out for a jog or lift heavy weights. He'd say stay in bed for a few weeks to allow the bone to heal, then go see this physio guy and he'll help you make this leg strong again, so you can walk again. Yet that's not what doctors advise for diabetes. They advise to eat tons of carbs anyway. It makes the OGTT test sort of unethical. OK, we'll just make you eat something that will make you sick, just to see if you are sick. OK, we'll just bend your leg here like so in an unnatural fashion that would indicate to us that your leg is indeed broken, just to see if your leg is broken. It makes no sense, but it certainly says a lot about how we see glucose. It's quite the paradox actually. We see glucose as good because obviously we wouldn't make patients eat 75g of it in one sitting just to see if they're diabetic. But we see glucose as toxic in diabetics because it obviously is when it rises above a certain threshold. I mean, we know it's bad, but we know it's good. But I digress.
Maybe we see diabetes type 2 differently from other diseases because of this paradox above. But I have an easy solution to this. Take what we're certain of, and ignore what we're not. We're certain that glucose is toxic when it rises above a certain point. But we're not certain it's food because not all foods contain glucose. Eliminate the uncertainty, keep the certainty. Paradox gone. So how does this help me determine what diabetes type 2 is, and what the treatment is, and if we can actually cure it? Well, isn't it obvious?
Last edited by M Levac : Mon, Aug-27-12 at 10:45.
|
Linear Mode
