Thinking about Diabesity 3

These “Thinking about “ pieces are my highly speculative way of working out diabetes  using the KPT2 perspective, right now I’m wondering about obesity and whether it really is what we’ve been told it is.

First of all I believe there is something in our food that can be toxic at a fundamental level, especially with constant exposure, which causes our bodies to compensate in ways that cause problems down the line.

Essentially, I’m saying that body processes go awry and instead of helping, begin to hurt. The result of this is what I’m calling inflammation, basically slightly misaligned processes that are rubbing each other the wrong way. These processes go awry do to cumulative trauma. Cumulative trauma is actually a term for injury caused by repetitive actions. I use it here because it captures the idea of repeated exposures causing small amounts of damage that can lead to chronic and disabling consequences.

Here’s a useful analogy. A highly skilled boxer blocks or slips most punches but still some get through and take an effect. This tells in the later rounds when the coordination is missing and the punches are neither hard nor crisp, systems are now misfiring due to the accumulated damage caused by punches.

Robert Scheinman on A Sweet Life used this description for IR, which I’m now stealing for my own purposes. You have a satellite disk on the roof and through the actions of wind and rain, it slowly, over time, shifts. It becomes misaligned and the reception begins to suffer. You can boost the signal many times to get reception but for the most part you’re going to get a lot more static as well. Think of this static as an interference that disrupts or skews signaling in the body.

Okay, I almost said it. Now I’ll state it concisely. Fat is largely protective in our modern toxic environment. Think of it as the body’s storage facility, a place where the effects of toxicity can be sequestered. Notice that I said “the effects of toxicity”. I don’t doubt that some toxins do get stored in the body, but here I’m talking about the compensations that the body makes when it comes into contact with a toxin

Toxicity is a very specific thing for any given individual; some of us are sensitive to some things and not to others and some vary in how much exposure will cause a response. There is a general area under the curve where our behavior clusters given any input but we are talking KPD here.  It is widely known that people of color have a disproportionate rate of diabetes and KPD is found at a higher rate in peoples of color. So for the sake of keeping this short, I’m going with the idea that KPD’s basically have around the same sensitivities.

Now I can give you the idea of “fat carrying capacity”. One of the papers mentioned on this blog referred to the fact that the heaviest KPD’s kept their blood sugars in check far better than the thinner diabetics even as they continued to gain weight.

http://ketosisprone.blogspot.com/2010/06/increased-weight-and-insulin-resistance.html

This situation continued until eventually the people relapsed. Their blood sugars rose sharply       . My position on this is that they reached the end of their carrying capacity. This is where the body can no longer put on body fat as a response to a continual toxic challenge because body fat, in itself, becomes toxic. Without this ability, the toxicity (which in this case may be the high blood sugars) can not be stored and the blood sugars rose until they, once again, went out of control.

I’m using blood sugars here but what is body putting on fat in response to?  It could be almost anything, that it has a strong correlation to stabilized blood sugars in this case doesn’t mean that they are linked. There could be a myriad of things triggering it. What this is about is that this is a response to something internal not to caloric intake or goodness of food.

This carrying capacity runs largely between the two poles of skeletal muscle  and fat tissues both which can be used to draw down toxicity effects and depending on the person this storage will be on a line between these two poles.

For example, I put on muscle easily but fat is nearly impossible for me to maintain. In this case, I would be down near the muscle part of the spectrum. I actually think this is rare. There is a very strong evolutionary advantage to putting on weight since it gives you something to fall back on in lean times. I would suspect that most people would shade more towards fat storage.

The common view of fat storage is that it is a way to store energy for future uses. Here the idea takes a bit of a twist. Putting on fat is a way of offsetting problems caused by  blood sugars by quickly converting these sugars to fat and storing them in fat tissue. Obviously, this would have to do with the relative sensitivity of the two types of tissue to insulin. This is not a constant but I would say that those who tend to put on fat have more overall sensitivity there.

Let’s put this on a scale of 0 to 100. At “0”, a person has no ability to store fats while at “100” they have an endless ability to do so. Where a person sits on this scale determines the person’s carrying capacity.

I would assume that the need for such capacity would only come into play if the person needs it. If the environment doesn’t contain a lot of toxicity for an individual then there would be little or no reaction and little need to use this capacity.

Why do people feel better when the drop weight? Using this idea, it would be when they have exceeded their carrying capacity. The lose of weight would take them below the point where their weight becomes toxic. This would also seem to suggest that it should be very hard to lose and keep off weight since the fat isn’t about energy but a need to off set some imbalance. In this case, it serves a purpose in maintaining stability. The body would seek to put this weight back on and if it is truly protective, it would probably put back more to guard against any future losses.

This may seem absurd but I don’t find it any more absurd as believing that in the last forty years a third of the population has become lazy over eaters. There is also the fact that most of the people I know, who are obese, work pretty hard and do watch what they eat.

Slowly, I am being prodded up a path that says the strong correlation between diabetes and obesity is akin to that of smoke and heat to fire.

Thinking about: Eating. Maybe one size does not fit all

Though most of the testing of KPD's tends to involve obese participants, it should be noted that many KPD's  are not only not obese, they are lean. Typically, when I look at papers where the participants aren't chosen, the lean members comprise a quarter to a third. Even in childhood DKA episodes, the obese number about fifty percent.

What does this tell us about KPD's and weight? I keep hearing and seeing ads telling parents to make sure their children are active and eating right. This is the answer to childhood obesity, exercise and diet. Okay, I am a fan of both sloth and gluttony, I tend to be good at them, but I have to admit there's nothing wrong with having children out there physically engaging the world without a candy bar in their mouths.

KPD is showing us something, however. What do you say to a person who is a thin diabetic? You obviously can't ask him or her to go on a diet nor would you put them on exercise schedule to help burn calories. We don't give the same advice to the thin KPD simply because it doesn't make obvious sense. They are thin. We give it to the heavy ones because they are fat. It's still the same condition with the same underlying causes. It gets expressed differently but the numbers between fat and thin are pretty much the same. I'm saying this because, I believe we have to look deeper than this. There is something going here and the range of body types it effects doesn't seem to point at behavior.

The people of sub-Saharan Africa have a much bigger problem with Ketosis Prone Diabetes but this tends to be more in urban environments. There hasn't been a study but I would hazard a guess that you could draw a trendline representing length of urbanization of KPDs and their families and find quite a correlation.

Another thing to note is it tends to cluster in people of color, not that whites don't get it, they do, but the prevalence is far higher in people of color. Now I'm pretty sure you don't want to say that all these people of color are lazy and eat too much. Besides, how could that be true if a good many of them are thin?

I believe that most of this is a response to diet. It is, after all, about metabolism. Its higher rate of prevalence in urban areas suggests that it has something to do with the moving from traditional diets to more modern diets. It would be logical to point out that there are many things that go with urbanization that could just as readily be pointed as a cause. This is true but I would say that this exists worldwide in varied modern environments so I would have to ask: how many things could this be? To tell the truth, I don't know nor does anybody else. What I do know is purely anecdotal and the KPD's I've talked to have had to change their diets significantly to hold their blood sugars down with diet and exercise, those on insulin, generally, have not.

This difference in insulin using KPD's and non-insulin using KPD's suggest that some element of diet is effecting blood sugars. Think of it as some sort of intolerance. What is it? I really can't know. I list a bunch of blogs I follow that are all about nutrition because I'm trying to find out.

I ate a very healthy diet before I was diagnosed but now I find I can't eat that same diet without a significant rise in blood sugar. Would I say that, simply because I can't eat it, no one should? No. What I will say is that KPD is different and pretending that it isn't does not work. We can not assume what is healthy. We must verify.

I've just read the usual recommendations of the ADA and others about what is healthy to eat but does it include KPD? I think not. If these foods are fine there is really only one way to know and that's to test the blood sugar. I see all these recommendations about what to eat but, one size does not fit all and this is especially true of KPD. What should be recommended is that all families get a meter and test what their food is actually doing to them. If there is a significant intolerance, blood sugar will exceed 140. If this was the recommendation of the USDA there would be far fewer DKA events in this country. It would also provide important data about what is safe and what is not about a whole range of products.

To repeat, there is something in the KPD diet, that may not effect others but which is probably poisonous to KPDs. We can't identify who is KPD but if people were checking their blood sugars and correlating it with what they ate, the KPDs that are out there, who aren't diagnosed, could see this truck coming

The obesity epidemic or what's up with all the fat people.

Most likely, if you're reading this, you're diabetic and you're overweight. You might have tried diets and lost a little bit or a lot but you probably gained it back and have pretty much learned to live with it. This isn't all that unusual unfortunately. We are in an unprecedented epidemic of obesity with rising diabetes.

The usual prescription is for more exercise and cutting the calories. The basic prescription has at its base the biblical idea of gluttony and sloth. If you are fat, you feel shame. I'm going to row against the tide on this one with something called "common sense".

I will start with the single principle that all humans are animals and that the basic principles of being a living being applies to all living beings. The idea I wish to bring forth from here has to do with eating and this idea is this: animals eat because they are hungry and they stop eating when they are not.

Now you could bring up various animal experiments about fat mice and rats and how they will eat long after they are so fat that they can't stand and other bizarre displays but I didn't mention obesity. I only said that:animals eat because they are hungry and they stop eating when they are not. I didn't mention obesity because I don't think it's relevant to the discussion. Obesity, I have come to believe, is a symptom and not a cause.

If obesity is not a cause but a symptom, what's the cause? Hunger! Yep, hunger. I'm putting forth the proposition that we are in the midst of famine.

My youngest boy is exhibit A. He was a poor college student who went to school in his hometown so he was able to scrounge food from family and friends. His typical procedure was to arrive for dinner and then try to eat - forever. He would sit and eat until he was full and then, not knowing where his next meal was coming from, would continue to try and put food away. It was horrible to watch. He would slowly chew with a mild revulsion on his face then swallow. No matter how hard he tried, he could never seem to get beyond a few fork fulls before he had to give up.

This isn't news. Eating after you're full is very hard and the thought of doing it over and over again makes you feel green. Try it. You can't do it. But you might say that you've seen people overeat all the time. Once again, stick with the idea. I didn't say people don't overeat. I said that it is nearly impossible to eat, if you aren't hungry.

I am exhibit B. For the last thirty years, I have been a bike rider. What ever I had to do, I would try to do it on a bike. I would put somewhere between four thousand and five thousand miles a year on a bike. I ate carbs like crazy in order to do this because carbo loading was the thing to do when you were putting in a lot of physical exertion. My reputation for absolute gluttony is based on this. I was never fat but I could eat plate after plate of food. I ate until my stomach was full and then ate some more but I remained hungry. This was my life. I couldn't stop eating because I was famished.

You can't diet, if you're hungry. It will only make you hungrier. You can't excercise when you're hungry because your body cuts back on motion. You can, however, grow fat because there really isn't a connection between appetite and obesity.

I hear the experts talk about empty calories, large portions and too many snacks but rats, no matter the density or type of calories, would stop eating. Hunger is basic and at a level far below regard.

Stole this from Peter of HyperLipid

Here

Now I'll say it again: we eat because we are hungry not out of some lascivious need. What we are seeing now is hunger, one that isn't slacked by eating. Something has gone wrong with our diet and we are now hungry at a level that causes us to eat in search of a satiation which we can't achieve.

Mike