Why are you bringing nuance into this? If a single crystal of sugar touches your tongue BAM! Diabeetus!Well, it kind of does... if you eat so much of it (together with other food) that it makes you obese.
Why are you bringing nuance into this? If a single crystal of sugar touches your tongue BAM! Diabeetus!Well, it kind of does... if you eat so much of it (together with other food) that it makes you obese.
You're forgetting the insulin resistance part of it. Your body's cells stop actually taking in the insulin and this happens before you pancreas gets visceral fat around it to where it has trouble/can't produce enough insulin.Not just sugar. Sugar is not the sole cause of obesity, abdominal fat, and/or intra-abdominal fat.
Listen. You explicitly said that a mechanism between obesity and diabetes has not been established. I've now provided a direct, explicit academic source pointing to the mechanism. Acknowledge it.
You're simply presuming they're healthy, because you can't abide reading a source that contradicts you. Active football players are not obese.
Considering you just mindlessly ignored the other sources I provided, here's a few more-- the first being a clinician directly answering a common question from diabetic patients.
Why do I have diabetes when I don’t eat sugar? | TheHealthSite.com
Dr Tejal Lathia answers this common diabetes query. TheHealthSite.comwww.thehealthsite.com
"I do not consume sugar, why do I have diabetes? -- It is a very common question most specialists hear while attending to patients who have been diagnosed with diabetes. However, this is one of the biggest misconceptions about diabetes mellitus. Consumption of excessive sugar does not directly cause diabetes."
8 diabetes myths you shouldn't believe
Is diabetes caused by eating too much sugar, and should people with diabetes follow a special diet? Our nutritional expert busts popular diabetes myths.www.bhf.org.uk
"It’s also not true to say that type 2 diabetes is caused by sugar. However, the chances of developing this type of diabetes are greater if you are overweight or obese. A high-sugar diet is often a high-calorie diet, and too many calories can lead to weight gain."
Myth Buster: Dishing the Details on Diabetes
Nearly 30 million Americans have diabetes. As common as it is, diabetes is an often-misunderstood disease. Is it caused by eating too much sugar? Do all diabetics need insulin shots? UR Medicine endocrinologist Dr. Susanne Miedlich dispels some diabetes myths.www.urmc.rochester.edu
"Fact: Eating sugar does not cause diabetes."
In all his regurgitated waffle, you've not truly addressed anything that's been put to you. You asked for the actual mechanism between obesity and diabetes-- you were given it. You asked for evidence of people developing diabetes without overeating sugar-- you were given it. You were also given over 6 expert sources directly stating that obesity is the primary risk factor, and that eating sugar is not the direct cause. You've been given everything you could possibly need. And you've just responded with the same limp quibbling, denials and arrogant dismissals of what you've been shown. All the while, providing absolutely nothing to support your own position, and no good reason to ignore the contradicting evidence.You're forgetting the insulin resistance part of it. Your body's cells stop actually taking in the insulin and this happens before you pancreas gets visceral fat around it to where it has trouble/can't produce enough insulin.
I've been saying there's tons of sources that will contradict what I or you or anyone says. You act like we know everything and how everything works, with nutrition there's lots of unknowns because the studies are so shit because there's just tons of confounding variables and you'd have to control what tons of people would eat for most of their lives (as what people say they eat and what they do actually eat are 2 different things) to actually have studies on par with drug studies in methodology and we obviously don't and really can't do that. So you have to base everything off of mechanisms and go based on what logically makes the most sense.
I already covered that. Most people don't realize how much added sugars are in things that you don't normally consider as being sweets like say ketchup. Or the fact that refined grains are worse than table sugar and technically aren't sugars on the label but your body very quickly coverts them to sugars. That's why if you do a glucometer reading (that I've mentioned a few times already) after eating a slice of white bread, your blood sugar will spike even the though the bread has very little sugar listed on the label. People normally think pizza is bad for them because of the cheese and processed meats, but it's the crust and tomato sauce that's horrible for you. Someone eating pizza regularly could easily be like, "well, I'm not eating a lot of sugar."
Then when you get addicted to sugar, you want to keep eating. There's so many processed foods out there with just sugars/simple carbs as the fiber is removed, the fat is removed (because they said it's bad for you), and lots of snack-type/breakfast-type foods have no protein either. And eating tons of those type of food totally fucks up your hormones. Just getting off the sugar will easily lend itself to eating less because you'll be eating the fibers, proteins and fats. The fiber makes you feel full right away, the protein helps you stay full for longer, and the fat works with the hormones in your body to tell you to stop eating.
I'm the one that told you about visceral fat, I literally posted an article talking about it. Why would I post something the completely ruins my argument? You still haven't provided any evidence that people develop diabetes without over eating sugar, refined grains are sugars to your body even though the aren't sugar on the label. I can give you over 6 expert opinions that say otherwise. That doesn't prove anything. What about all the experts in 50+ years (and still going) that said fats were bad for you? They were completely wrong.In all his regurgitated waffle, you've not truly addressed anything that's been put to you. You asked for the actual mechanism between obesity and diabetes-- you were given it. You asked for evidence of people developing diabetes without overeating sugar-- you were given it. You were also given over 6 expert sources directly stating that obesity is the primary risk factor, and that eating sugar is not the direct cause. You've been given everything you could possibly need. And you've just responded with the same limp quibbling, denials and arrogant dismissals of what you've been shown. All the while, providing absolutely nothing to support your own position, and no good reason to ignore the contradicting evidence.
It's impossible to have a rational conversation with you about this. I'm done, peace out.
Then why don't you? If you can, why have you so far provided fuck-all and just dismissed every expert source you're given?I can give you over 6 expert opinions that say otherwise.
I've given you expert sources saying exactly that! As well as an expert source pointing at the mechanism by which it happens! And you've Just. Bloody. Ignored it! But then, why would anyone be surprised? That's your M.O.!You still haven't provided any evidence that people develop diabetes without over eating sugar
Just finding an expert that corroborates your take doesn't magically make your take right when the science is still working it out. Hence the following:Then why don't you? If you can, why have you so far provided fuck-all and just dismissed every expert source you're given?
I've given you expert sources saying exactly that! As well as an expert source pointing at the mechanism by which it happens! And you've Just. Bloody. Ignored it! But then, why would anyone be surprised? That's your M.O.!
No interest in yet another wall of deflective waffle. You said that overindulgence of sugar is the only way to get type 2 diabetes; that you can't get it otherwise; and that you could easily provide sources stating that.Just finding an expert that corroborates your take doesn't magically make your take right when the science is still working it out. [...]
You're also saying sugar definitively doesn't lead to diabetes.No interest in yet another wall of deflective waffle. You said that overindulgence of sugar is the only way to get type 2 diabetes; that you can't get it otherwise; and that you could easily provide sources stating that.
That doesn't sound like "we don't know XYZ for certain". That was you making very definite claims, and claiming you could provide lots of supporting evidence.
So where is it? Still waiting. Because that's not even close to what that Duke Health article says.
No: I'm saying overeating sugar is not the direct cause, for which I have 6 expert sources corroborating. It can lead to it. That's not the same thing.You're also saying sugar definitively doesn't lead to diabetes.
I don't think a bathroom qualifies as a "program, class, training, seminar, or other event", so those aren't as fundamentally paradoxical as it might initially sound. Also, technically shouldn't such a program, etc where attendance is based on sex, gender identity or sexual orientation fall afoul of Title IX already?Alabama just passed a bill to ban DEI programs, which it defines as "any program, class, training, seminar, or other event where attendance is based on individual's race, sex, gender identity, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation, or that otherwise violates this act."
It also requires (not allows, REQUIRES) public institutions of higher learning (read: community colleges and such) to designate bathrooms "based on biological sex".
Gov. Kay Ivey signs anti-DEI bill despite backlash
Editor’s Note: This developing story was updated Wednesday to include the bill being signed into law. The Alabama state legislature passed Senate Bill 129 on Tuesday. Gov. Kay Ivey signed it into law on Wednesday, and it will take effect on Oct. 1. The bill, which was amended by the state House...thecrimsonwhite.com
Those two things aren't necessarily connected on that level. The bathrooms thing is more like a "P.S." in a letter.I don't think a bathroom qualifies as a "program, class, training, seminar, or other event", so those aren't as fundamentally paradoxical as it might initially sound. Also, technically shouldn't such a program, etc where attendance is based on sex, gender identity or sexual orientation fall afoul of Title IX already?
I guess it would bar them from holding any "program, class, training, seminar, or other event" in a bathroom, though.
Banning unisex bathrooms seems kinda silly though, which this presumably would also do in addition to making the men's and women's rooms "based on biological sex" rather than gender identity.
Hmmm...you have to be born in the US to be PotUS, does he have to stay out of Alabama now?Alabama just passed a bill to ban DEI programs, which it defines as "any program, class, training, seminar, or other event where attendance is based on individual's race, sex, gender identity, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation, or that otherwise violates this act."
You have to piece together the mechanisms. Insulin resistance is a step towards diabetes and sugar causes said insulin resistance, thus sugar is the root cause of diabetes.No: I'm saying overeating sugar is not the direct cause, for which I have 6 expert sources corroborating. It can lead to it. That's not the same thing.
But this is another distraction. Where are your sources? You said you could easily provide sources attesting that eating sugar is the sole way to get type 2 diabetes and that one cannot get it without overeating sugar. That Duke Health article doesn't say that.
So where are they? This is the third time asking. I don't want another page of waffle, I want those sources. I gave you 6.
Getting rid of DEI is a good thing because it's a waste of tax payer money. Only multiple occupancy bathrooms in schools need to be designated based on sex and there is the issue of increased sexual assault.Alabama just passed a bill to ban DEI programs, which it defines as "any program, class, training, seminar, or other event where attendance is based on individual's race, sex, gender identity, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation, or that otherwise violates this act."
It also requires (not allows, REQUIRES) public institutions of higher learning (read: community colleges and such) to designate bathrooms "based on biological sex".
Gov. Kay Ivey signs anti-DEI bill despite backlash
Editor’s Note: This developing story was updated Wednesday to include the bill being signed into law. The Alabama state legislature passed Senate Bill 129 on Tuesday. Gov. Kay Ivey signed it into law on Wednesday, and it will take effect on Oct. 1. The bill, which was amended by the state House...thecrimsonwhite.com
No. You said you could easily provide sources stating that diabetes only comes from overcomsumption of sugar, that it was the sole and direct cause.You have to piece together [...]
Imagine living in Alabama, and going to school there, then again I live in Ohio.Alabama just passed a bill to ban DEI programs, which it defines as "any program, class, training, seminar, or other event where attendance is based on individual's race, sex, gender identity, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation, or that otherwise violates this act."
It also requires (not allows, REQUIRES) public institutions of higher learning (read: community colleges and such) to designate bathrooms "based on biological sex".
Gov. Kay Ivey signs anti-DEI bill despite backlash
Editor’s Note: This developing story was updated Wednesday to include the bill being signed into law. The Alabama state legislature passed Senate Bill 129 on Tuesday. Gov. Kay Ivey signed it into law on Wednesday, and it will take effect on Oct. 1. The bill, which was amended by the state House...thecrimsonwhite.com
I showed you that some researches feel sugar is a major cause and some do not think so.No. You said you could easily provide sources stating that diabetes only comes from overcomsumption of sugar, that it was the sole and direct cause.
So provide them. This source doesn't say that either. Where are those sources?