Yes, that's a screen grab containing your claim that people are eating enough sugar to give them 100% chance of diabetes. A claim you've been unable to provide a single source or detail for-- how much sugar, how many people, a single study.
>85% of people with prediabetes, for whom it doesn't develop to diabetes.
OK, serious question here: do you genuinely believe that if presented with identical stimuli, all human bodies will always respond identically?
And where are these people that are immune to insulin resistance?
IF THEY CHANGE THEIR DIET, diabetes can be avoided. I underlined that part specifically because you seem to not be able to read what I say.
I said different people can eat differing amounts of sugar. I pointed out how Asians are generally more susceptible to sugar. If you have pre-diabetes, you are obviously eating too much sugar.
Look, you can't just keep reframing the same statement in different ways and pretend you're answering anything.
How much sugar is "constantly eating too much sugar"?
Firstly, different people will have different susceptibility to insulin resistance. Secondly, insulin resistance is not diabetes.
Can I give you some advice? Don't do this. There is no way that paper is not a shitshow in terms of any useful point you want to make here. It is not going to end well for you if you press this point.
It's clearly not "meaningless". You are talking out of your arse.
It is in fact a relationship very similar in concept to that of sugar intake and insulin resistance. People will have different susceptibilities.
No, I said mechanisms, so I'd send you a paper linking saturated fatty acids to activation of Toll-like receptors and increased levels of pro-inflammatory markers / mediators such as (if I remember rightly) C-reactive protein and NFkB (that "k" should really be a kappa, btw.)
Firstly, vitamins are a key part of diet. Secondly, you just said doing the opposite of the government recommendations as healthy eating, you didn't specify an area.
It varies from person to person.
Yeah, that's why it can take decades to get diabetes.
Same with any paper that you provide me, that's the point. You keep referencing things that I know the only studies on them are a shitshow.
It's the quality of your cholesterol, not the amount of it that matters. You can literally hack a cholesterol test if you are getting one that will increase or lower the cost of your insurance for example.
Where's this paper?
Uhh... the foods they tell you to eat and not eat. The original food pyramid was upside down in essence. For example, the CDC link I sent you is telling people to eat less healthy dairy foods, is telling people saturated fats are bad, is telling people cholesterol in food is bad (dietary cholesterol has no impact on your own cholesterol).