So you've got nothing. Your own example is of a group of people who don't eat too much sugar, but still experience higher rates of diabetes.
^ fundamental misunderstanding of what a symptom is.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Depends how strict we're being on terminology. In strict medical terms, a symptom is a subjective experience of an individual. An objective, observable phenomenon (such as measured blood sugar level) is a "sign".
Holy shit:
www.fool.com
Why Dogecoin, Shiba Inu, and Pepe Are Soaring Today | The Motley Fool
Meme-token mania is far from over, with these three tokens seeing incredible surges today and over the past week.
Attachments
It's not really a surprise.
All these things are going to be extremely volatile, because they're not meaningfully tied to any real-world value. They are very prone to passing fads and whims: all it needs is enough of a push, people will see the value going up and want to get in on the act. It will then be a near inevitability that someone will eventually decide that the value is absurd, start selling up and it will all motor into reverse: crypto could almost be designed for "boom-bust". This is also makes it extremely attractive for people who think they can play the market and win: gamblers, essentially.
It is a theory that may or may not be right.It is a measure of your incompetence that you think that usefully proves your point.
High blood sugar is not a symptom...
There are plausible links between insulin resistance and potetntial development of Alzheimer's Disease. Which is definitely not the same as:
In the strict medical sense as Agema says, it is a 'sign' of diabetes. It is not the same thing as diabetes-- the causal condition we are discussing-- as you seem to be treating it. It results from that.
Let me just ask directly: do you believe that the only way someone can have an excess of something in the body is if they're eating too much of it?
Main theory may be a bit of an exaggeration. But it's just another reason to limit sugar consumption because if it's ends up being true then...
People don't come into the doctor saying they have high blood sugar... Yes, there's a direct casual effect.
Not of everything, but sugar yes. Also, not 100% technically sugar as something like carbs from bread (that aren't sugar) get converted to sugar quickly by your body. Bread is higher on the glycemic index than table sugar.
There IS one. That doesn't mean the cause and the sign are the same thing. High blood sugar can exist aside from diabetes.
So, you don't believe it's possible for someone to eat roughly the same amount of sugar as average, but for their body to be less capable of metabolising/accommodating it?
When did I ever say high blood sugar and diabetes are the same thing? Though diabetes can't exist without having high blood sugar routinely.
I said the amount of sugar that is too much varies from person to person. For each person if they get diabetes, it is because of over consumption of sugar. Type 2 diabetes is 100% avoidable disease.
You didn't say "these are the same things". But you did start talking about high blood sugar interchangeably.
You avoided answering my question.
They directly lead into each other. It's like a telling a story with a series of events that all lead into the next one.
How didn't I answer the question?
One causes the other, though also has other signs. The other can be caused by the first, but not always.
You didn't say whether you believe its possible for someone to eat roughly an average amount of sugar, and for their body to have trouble metabolising or accommodating sugar. Which was my question.
Take away the sugar and nothing along that line of events happens.
If by average, you mean what the daily recommended sugar intake is, then nobody would get type 2 diabetes. There's probably a super rare condition that is the exception to that.
This is categorically false. You've even provided an example yourself: sumo wrestlers do not have a massively excessive sugar intake, yet they do experience a significantly higher rate of Type 2 diabetes.
So the woke opinion from lefties is that the US is bad, don't vote for the Democrats, etc.
The only problem is they fail to see that the current USA vs the future USA will be different. You just saw the US deploy food aid to Gaza a place pre-Oct 7 that would have taken the average American hostage had they stepped foot in it. Would China do the same with Vietnam, India, or Taiwan? Would Russia do the same with Ukraine, Finland, and the UK?
That is partly why the US is the world leader and a superpower in geopolitics. People who slam hammers into every nail you see like the Mongols, Nazi Germany, or Japan don't last as long as powerful countries since they usually overstep via bloodshed.
Everyone complains about the US invading Iraq and somewhat Afghanistan. The problem with Iraq was that the US couldn't see well into the future, they didn't know about the Arab Spring which would have taken Saddam out of power possibly.
When the worst of climate change hits around the 2050s-2100s. The US as a food basket will be the deciding factor on whether the world starves or not. The US has one of the few safe harbors from Climate change, and US refugee policy will either see large swathes of mankind die or not. Mark my words.
The only problem is they fail to see that the current USA vs the future USA will be different. You just saw the US deploy food aid to Gaza a place pre-Oct 7 that would have taken the average American hostage had they stepped foot in it. Would China do the same with Vietnam, India, or Taiwan? Would Russia do the same with Ukraine, Finland, and the UK?
That is partly why the US is the world leader and a superpower in geopolitics. People who slam hammers into every nail you see like the Mongols, Nazi Germany, or Japan don't last as long as powerful countries since they usually overstep via bloodshed.
Everyone complains about the US invading Iraq and somewhat Afghanistan. The problem with Iraq was that the US couldn't see well into the future, they didn't know about the Arab Spring which would have taken Saddam out of power possibly.
When the worst of climate change hits around the 2050s-2100s. The US as a food basket will be the deciding factor on whether the world starves or not. The US has one of the few safe harbors from Climate change, and US refugee policy will either see large swathes of mankind die or not. Mark my words.
Putting aside the rest of your claims, that really wasn't the problem with Iraq, and there wasn't just one.