Fri, Mar-02-18, 18:02
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
I don't believe a word of it. I mean, they have no clue. There's only two types. The article doesn't mention anything else but absence of insulin, and inability to use insulin which is produced. Instead, I prefer to distinguish them by actual genuine distiguishing characteristics only found in either type.
Absence of insulin
Hyperketonemia (tons of ketones in the blood)
Hyperglycemia (the only common characteristic)
Absence of blood ketones
OK, so they have no clue, otherwise they'd notice that the cause of hyperketonemia in type 1 is absence of insulin, and in type 2 there is a ton of insulin and zero ketones, so insulin is the thing that inhibits ketogenesis in the liver, which means that in type 2 insulin works just fine when it hits the liver. Therefore insulin resistance is a false diagnosis, i.e. the condition doesn't actually exist.
When all is well, insulin is degraded in the liver once it's done its job of first inhibiting ketogenesis, then inhibiting glycogenolysis. So, when a diagnosis of insulin resistance is made, what is actually diagnosed is interference at the second step of inhibition of glycogenolysis. When this step is interfered with, blood glucose that hits the liver is not stored, it lingers in the blood, we get high BG.
Ketones activate insulin receptors in the liver (probably in all other cells as well but let's stick to the liver for our purpose). This means that the proximal cause of what's called insulin resistance - interference with second step of inhibition of glycogenolysis - is absence of ketones. Never mind that insulin receptors work just fine for the purpose of inhibiting ketogenesis, i.e. ketones are not needed for that function. But then this also means that the proximal cause of absence of ketones is hyperinsulinemia. But then this also means that the proximal cause of hyperinsulinemia is hyperglycemia. But then this must mean that the proximal cause of hyperglycemia is dietary carbs. It's truly genuinely exquisitely ironic that the test for insulin resistance is an oral glucose tolerance test - dietary carbs. It's like the test for smashed thumb syndrome is to smash the thumb with a hammer.
The primary diagnostic criteria for diabetes type 2 is some variation of hyperglycemia depending on specific conditions, more than one of which are measured using an OGTT (again with the irony). Let's make it clear in the most basic terms I can possibly think of. If ya got high blood glucose, and it don't matter how ya got high blood glucose, ya got diabetes type 2. Ya know why they go with an OGTT? Cuz dietary glucose is the most reliable agent to cause diabetes type 2. They tried all kinds of other ways to test. But no, pure glucose by mouth is the shiznitz.
Jebus, I got mad just writing this. I mean, how could an expert be so blind to the ridiculously obvious?