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.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.!
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:
Some investigators contend that commonly consumed amounts of sugar do not contribute to this epidemic,” Herman said. “While others are convinced that excessive sugar ingestion is a major cause.
Every expert you can cite saying you're right, I can cite an expert saying I'm right. So then what's the point of doing that? You can do that for lots of things like diabetes or heart disease, we don't know nearly as much as you think we do. That's why I care about the actual mechanism that are theorized to cause diabetes and which one makes the most logical sense.
Insulin is a key hormone that regulates blood glucose after eating. Insulin resistance, when the body’s metabolic tissues stop responding normally to insulin, is one of the earliest detectable changes in the progression to diabetes.
However, according to this study, the cause of insulin resistance may have little to do with defects in insulin signaling and might actually be caused by a separate process triggered by excess sugar in the liver that activates a molecular factor known as carbohydrate-responsive element-binding protein, or ChREBP.
New Theory on How Insulin Resistance, Metabolic Disease Begin
DURHAM, N.C. -- Does eating too much sugar cause type 2 diabetes? The answer may not be simple, but a study published Sept. 26 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation adds to growing research linking excessive sugar consumption -- specifically the sugar fructose -- to a rise in metabolic...
Hence, why I said you're overlooking insulin resistance.
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.
You're also saying sugar definitively doesn't lead to diabetes.
Previous studies have reported that high fructose diets can cause multiple metabolic problems in humans and animals, including insulin resistance and fatty liver disease. Because most people found to be insulin-resistant also have fatty liver, many investigators have proposed that the fructose-induced fatty liver leads to liver dysfunction, which causes insulin resistance, diabetes and high risk for heart disease.
The new findings suggest fatty liver disease may be a red herring, Herman said. The likely cause of insulin resistance may not be the buildup of fat in the liver, as commonly believed, but rather the processes activated by ChREBP, which may then contribute to the development of both fatty liver and increased glucose production.
When you actually look at the mechanisms at play and try to figure them out, sugar is what is being pointed at as the cause. Associations, especially in nutrition, are rather weak evidence. I want to know the why. Even if it is just gaining weight that is indeed the cause, sugar is the main culprit there as well. It's not some coincidence that the newest weight loss drug is basically just a hormone that tells you that you're full, and the thing they've told people not to eat for 50+ years is the thing that naturally causes that hormone to be produced.
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.
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".
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 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
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.
Those two things aren't necessarily connected on that level. The bathrooms thing is more like a "P.S." in a letter.
Hmmm...you have to be born in the US to be PotUS, does he have to stay out of Alabama now?
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.
The predominant consequence of insulin resistance is type 2 diabetes (T2D). Insulin resistance is thought to precede the development of T2D by 10 to 15 years.
However, according to this study, the cause of insulin resistance may have little to do with defects in insulin signaling and might actually be caused by a separate process triggered by excess sugar in the liver that activates a molecular factor known as carbohydrate-responsive element-binding protein, or ChREBP.
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
Here's an instance of someone that is trying to be so woke that they in the end become racist.
And in a game built by Black women, it matters that the faces of the future look like the faces of the past.
What if someone said that Tiger Woods shouldn't be the face of golf because golf was built by white men and it matters that the faces of the future look like the faces of the past. That would be incredibly racist. And so is saying the same about women's basketball.
And in a game built by Black women, it matters that the faces of the future look like the faces of the past.
Women's basketball needs faces of future to be Black. Enter JuJu Watkins and Hannah Hidalgo
With Caitlin Clark headed to the WNBA, JuJu Watkins and Hannah Hidalgo will be the faces of the women's game - a sport built by Black players.
www.usatoday.com
What if someone said that Tiger Woods shouldn't be the face of golf because golf was built by white men and it matters that the faces of the future look like the faces of the past. That would be incredibly racist. And so is saying the same about women's basketball.
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?
So welcome to woke world where I can't even link this one fully because full context would be doxxing.
deadline.com
So the fully context.
A Harry Potter fan site has apparently gone full in on trying to destroy Rowling.
The newest move, trying to doxx J.K.Rowling's daughter.
Only apparently they didn't, they doxxed a random woman on instagram and that woman's daughter claiming they're J.K.Rowlings daughter and granddaughter and this is leading to people who dislike J.K Rowling to now apparently draw up revenge plans to get at J.K Rowling by targeting the random woman and her kid.......
J.K. Rowling Threatens ‘Harry Potter’ Fan With Lawsuit For Posting Lies About Her Family
JK Rowling threatens 'Harry Potter' fan with legal action they posted lies about her family in an apparent attack on her transgender views.
deadline.com
So the fully context.
A Harry Potter fan site has apparently gone full in on trying to destroy Rowling.
The newest move, trying to doxx J.K.Rowling's daughter.
Only apparently they didn't, they doxxed a random woman on instagram and that woman's daughter claiming they're J.K.Rowlings daughter and granddaughter and this is leading to people who dislike J.K Rowling to now apparently draw up revenge plans to get at J.K Rowling by targeting the random woman and her kid.......
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.
Some investigators contend that commonly consumed amounts of sugar do not contribute to this epidemic,” Herman said. “While others are convinced that excessive sugar ingestion is a major cause.
Then, I showed you the direct mechanism in the liver caused by sugar intake that causes insulin resistance. Then, I showed you insulin resistance precedes diabetes. People thought and still do think cholesterol causes heart disease. When you start looking at the actual mechanisms, that's not actually the case. Just like diabetes, the majority base everything off of associations and correlations vs the actual mechanisms.