Rates Of Diabetes I And II Are Rapidly Rising In Young Children And Teens

[haidut]

That's a great example that explains the effects of both genetics and environment and has given me a better mental model for these things. Thanks!

I think part of the issue is one side or the other is arguing for an ultimate cause. Taking your example, if no interventions are used, a person with a certain genetic disposition will develop hemochromatosis.

The person arguing for the environmental factors would say something like "Yes, but for any disease chalked up to genetics there is a theoretical intervention* that does not manipulate genes and still cures the disease. And it all comes down to environment anyway because look at what happens to people who are exposed to high levels of iron without the genetic predisposition."

To which the person in favour of the gene's eye view can say "Yes, but for any disease chalked up to the environment there is a theoretical intervention* that only manipulates genes and still cures the disease."

I agree distinctions are starting to sound pretty meaningless at this point. Though I hope that should clarify my position.

*At least in all but the most extreme cases

I think this is a very good illustrations with the following disclaimer. Unlike the genetic argument, which so far has relied on pretty much entirely theoretical arguments for interventions yet to come, the environmental argument has produced some results and drugs that do not manipulate genes but still work. Dietary interventions are also beginning to show results. Again, it comes down to results and complexity. The genetic explanation was at the forefront of medicine for more than 60 years and produced absolutely nothing in terms of therapy. The metabolic/environmental explanation is just starting to take hold and it already has results. So, thus far, the environmental argument has more weight on its side. Why add the extra theoretical framework that genes are involved in disease when it adds nothing of value for two reasons: 1) apparently environment controls expression to the point of negating heavily genetic features like height advantage in a single generation simply based on diet; 2) no genetic therapeutic results so far and no specific genes discovered to point fingers at for the most common chronic conditions despite decades of effort.
Again, I am not against genes, I am simply saying that so far the evidence for the role of genes in most diseases is sorely lacking despite 60+ years of serious efforts and good funding in that direction. I am excluding conditions like phenylketonuria, Down syndrome, hemophilia, etc for which the genetic role is very hard to dispute.

 

[jaa]

I think this is a very good illustrations with the following disclaimer. Unlike the genetic argument, which so far has relied on pretty much entirely theoretical arguments for interventions yet to come, the environmental argument has produced some results and drugs that do not manipulate genes but still work. Dietary interventions are also beginning to show results. Again, it comes down to results and complexity. The genetic explanation was at the forefront of medicine for more than 60 years and produced absolutely nothing in terms of therapy. The metabolic/environmental explanation is just starting to take hold and it already has results. So, thus far, the environmental argument has more weight on its side. Why add the extra theoretical framework that genes are involved in disease when it adds nothing of value for two reasons: 1) apparently environment controls expression to the point of negating heavily genetic features like height advantage in a single generation simply based on diet; 2) no genetic therapeutic results so far and no specific genes discovered to point fingers at for the most common chronic conditions despite decades of effort.
Again, I am not against genes, I am simply saying that so far the evidence for the role of genes in most diseases is sorely lacking despite 60+ years of serious efforts and good funding in that direction. I am excluding conditions like phenylketonuria, Down syndrome, hemophilia, etc for which the genetic role is very hard to dispute.

Ok I think I've got ya. If I understand you the environmental perspective is more of a pushback against the notion of genetic diseases that can't be cured by non-genetic intervention? That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Anyway thanks for the clarification on what must seem like a huge waste of time on your end.

 

[Tarmander]

I think this is a very good illustrations with the following disclaimer. Unlike the genetic argument, which so far has relied on pretty much entirely theoretical arguments for interventions yet to come, the environmental argument has produced some results and drugs that do not manipulate genes but still work. Dietary interventions are also beginning to show results. Again, it comes down to results and complexity. The genetic explanation was at the forefront of medicine for more than 60 years and produced absolutely nothing in terms of therapy. The metabolic/environmental explanation is just starting to take hold and it already has results. So, thus far, the environmental argument has more weight on its side. Why add the extra theoretical framework that genes are involved in disease when it adds nothing of value for two reasons: 1) apparently environment controls expression to the point of negating heavily genetic features like height advantage in a single generation simply based on diet; 2) no genetic therapeutic results so far and no specific genes discovered to point fingers at for the most common chronic conditions despite decades of effort.
Again, I am not against genes, I am simply saying that so far the evidence for the role of genes in most diseases is sorely lacking despite 60+ years of serious efforts and good funding in that direction. I am excluding conditions like phenylketonuria, Down syndrome, hemophilia, etc for which the genetic role is very hard to dispute.

Do you worry at all that the environmental argument strays pretty close to Marxism? I hear what you are saying here, that environmental therapies have yielded actual results vs the genetic which have not done much. But the big push in the 60s and 70s was this idea that people are blank slates, and therefore a big govt that molds people is the best. As far as I am concerned, that ideology has shaped much of what is wrong with our environment today.

 

[haidut]

Do you worry at all that the environmental argument strays pretty close to Marxism? I hear what you are saying here, that environmental therapies have yielded actual results vs the genetic which have not done much. But the big push in the 60s and 70s was this idea that people are blank slates, and therefore a big govt that molds people is the best. As far as I am concerned, that ideology has shaped much of what is wrong with our environment today.

I see the parallels with Marxism but we already know that politics tries to control science, so I doubt that the environmental argument was developed to favor Marxism. It was probably the other way around - totalitarian minds saw an opportunity to twist a scientific theory to their advantage and use it as an excuse for whatever gory monstrosity they were planning to do. It has been done in many countries. Fascists used genetics to push eugenics and social darwinism, Marxists/communists used Lamarckism to push Big Govt and control free thought, Chinese govt uses ancient teachings to justify the ruthless crushing of individuals in the name of the Great Empire, etc. The examples are many, but I like the Lamarckism simply because it is the only sensible way for evolution to proceed forward. Nature does not like to waste anything, so why waste the experience of an organism and what it learned by not allowing it to pass it on to its offspring and rely instead on a random mutation which may turn out to be disadvantageous? It really sounds like a rather tortuous explanation and a requirement if you think about it. The most straightforward way would be that each organism accumulates "metabolic/envionmental experience" as it lives and then it passes that experience to its offspring, and so on. The ideas of randomness and progress are ultimately incompatible, as many great geneticist realized and became opponents of the Central Dogma in their later lives.

 

[Nokoni]

Of course type 2 is on the rise because so many people are getting fat. Type 2 is caused by becoming fat. Type 2 is completely curable.

According to RP (Glycemia, starch, and sugar in context):

"Unsaturated fatty acids, adrenaline, and cortisol cause insulin resistance."​

and

"...and the growing recognition that polyunsaturated fatty acids cause insulin resistance..."​

So PUFA causes insulin resistance. Then later he says:

"Acutely, the free polyunsaturated fatty acids cause capillary permeability to increase, and this can be detected at the beginning of “insulin resistance” or “diabetes.”"​

From which it is reasonable to conclude that in his mind "insulin resistance" IS "diabetes" (Type 2).

My understanding of the Type 2 / fat correlation is as follows:

1. PUFA causes insulin resistance.
2. Insulin resistance causes cellular glucose insufficiency
3. Cellular glucose insufficiency causes the cells to initiate hunger signaling (among many other bad things).
4. Hunger signaling induces more (ineffective) eating.
5. Excess glucose gets stored as fat.

If this is right, then to assert that "Type 2 is caused by becoming fat" has the arrow of causation going the wrong way. PUFA causes Type 2 (i.e., insulin resistance), which then causes increasing adiposity.

Also, if this is right, then type 2's are literally starving (at the cellular level) as they grow fatter, and doing so because they have become the victims of an extremely cruel fraud, and are more to be pitied than blamed.

And finally, if this is right, then no genetic mechanism that isn't common to virtually all of us need be invoked.

But I'm no expert so perhaps I've overlooked something.

 

[Regina]

I see the parallels with Marxism but we already know that politics tries to control science, so I doubt that the environmental argument was developed to favor Marxism. It was probably the other way around - totalitarian minds saw an opportunity to twist a scientific theory to their advantage and use it as an excuse for whatever gory monstrosity they were planning to do. It has been done in many countries. Fascists used genetics to push eugenics and social darwinism, Marxists/communists used Lamarckism to push Big Govt and control free thought, Chinese govt uses ancient teachings to justify the ruthless crushing of individuals in the name of the Great Empire, etc. The examples are many, but I like the Lamarckism simply because it is the only sensible way for evolution to proceed forward. Nature does not like to waste anything, so why waste the experience of an organism and what it learned by not allowing it to pass it on to its offspring and rely instead on a random mutation which may turn out to be disadvantageous? It really sounds like a rather tortuous explanation and a requirement if you think about it. The most straightforward way would be that each organism accumulates "metabolic/envionmental experience" as it lives and then it passes that experience to its offspring, and so on. The ideas of randomness and progress are ultimately incompatible, as many great geneticist realized and became opponents of the Central Dogma in their later lives.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

So PUFA causes insulin resistance.

Not just pufa: "Just about everything that goes wrong involves FFA increase. If they are totally saturated fatty acids, such as from coconut oil and butter, those are less harmful, but they still tend to shift the mitochondrial cellular metabolism away from using glucose and fructose and turning on various stress related things; By lowering the carbon dioxide production I think is the main mechanism."-RP

IR can be caused by any kind of fat and intramyocellular lipids.

Rapid impairment of skeletal muscle glucose transport/phosphorylation by free fatty acids in humans. - PubMed - NCBI
Free fatty acids and skeletal muscle insulin resistance. - PubMed - NCBI
Mechanism of free fatty acid-induced insulin resistance in humans.
Intramyocellular lipid concentrations are correlated with insulin sensitivity in humans: a 1H NMR spectroscopy study. - PubMed - NCBI
Effects of an overnight intravenous lipid infusion on intramyocellular lipid content and insulin sensitivity in African-American versus Caucasian a... - PubMed - NCBI

From which it is reasonable to conclude that in his mind "insulin resistance" IS "diabetes" (Type 2).

Yes I agree. T2D is IR and IR is T2D.

Diabetes Needs To Be Renamed

.

 

[Tarmander]

+1

 

[Nokoni]

Not just pufa

Quite right. And Ray Peat agrees with you too. As I quoted him:

According to RP (Glycemia, starch, and sugar in context):

"Unsaturated fatty acids, adrenaline, and cortisol cause insulin resistance."

My problem is with this statement:

Type 2 is caused by becoming fat.

It may not be literally false, but it is highly misleading. If we were to amend it as follows:

"Type 2 is caused by becoming fat, which in turn is mostly caused by consuming too much PUFA, and only infrequently caused by consuming too much highly nutritious food," then we can agree while at the same time fingering the real enemy -- PUFA.

(On a lighter note, PUFA consumption is caused by scientific fraud, which is caused by government, which makes government the real enemy. We be anarchists now :)

 

[Westside PUFAs]

which in turn is mostly caused by consuming too much PUFA

It's not just pufa though see here, here and here.

(On a lighter note, PUFA consumption is caused by scientific fraud, which is caused by government, which makes government the real enemy. We be anarchists now :)

I don't think it's that. pufa is naturally in almost all foods so you are always going to get some no matter what. But as far as veg. oils, people willingly choose to cook with them and eat condiments like mayo and dressing that are pure pufa. It's not the gov't, it's most people not caring to know about nutrition.

.

 

[encerent]

Medical business is booming!

 

[Nokoni]

It's not just pufa though see here, here and here.



I don't think it's that. pufa is naturally in almost all foods so you are always going to get some no matter what. But as far as veg. oils, people willingly choose to cook with them and eat condiments like mayo and dressing that are pure pufa. It's not the gov't, it's most people not caring to know about nutrition.

There it is again! "Not just pufa"! Oy. It keeps coming back despite nobody, least of all me, ever having said, implied, or even thought "just pufa". That particular straw man is a hardy little fellow.

So other things besides PUFA are harmful? Huh. I'll be sure to pass it on if I ever encounter anyone who doesn't already know it.

And PUFA is unavoidable? Who coulda known? Maybe someone who ate the lowest PUFA diet possible short of eating chemicals. Like I did many years ago. (Diet was sugar, gelatin, and coconut oil, and not recommended.)

And I never realized, on that day 50+ years ago when my dear physician daddy suddenly took away our butter, lard, and bacon grease, that he "willingly chose" to start feeding us poison in the form of margarine and corn oil, and at the exact same time as every other family in America! Which I'm sure was just a stupendous coincidence, and not at all the result of the relentless and unavoidable haranguing suddenly echoing off every surface from all the relevant institutions of the time, including my very own school, that saturated was evil and unsaturated was beautiful. Why I have half a mind to dig him up and give him what for.

Ray Peat is apparently unaware of the whole "willingly chose" explanation too.

Q Why are the unsaturated oils so popular if they are dangerous?​

It's a whole system of promotion, advertising, and profitability.​

50 years ago, paints and varnishes were made of soy oil, safflower oil, and linseed (flax seed) oil. Then chemists learned how to make paint from petroleum, which was much cheaper. As a result, the huge seed oil industry found its crop increasingly hard to sell. Around the same time, farmers were experimenting with poisons to make their pigs get fatter with less food, and they discovered that corn and soy beans served the purpose, in a legal way. The crops that had been grown for the paint industry came to be used for animal food. Then these foods that made animals get fat cheaply came to be promoted as foods for humans, but they had to direct attention away from the fact that they are very fattening. The "cholesterol" focus was just one of the marketing tools used by the oil industry. Unfortunately it is the one that has lasted the longest, even after the unsaturated oils were proven to cause heart disease as well as cancer. [Study at L.A. Veterans Hospital, 1971.]​

I use some of these oils (walnut oil is very nice, but safflower oil is cheaper) for oil painting, but I am careful to wash my hands thoroughly after I touch them, because they can be absorbed through the skin.​

 

[Xisca]

I am not a strong believer in genetics, and I think it is a mix with environment, that allows genes expression,
but mainly I ask myself WHAT is genetic...

Strangely, diabetis is increasing in DOGS, who are forced to eat cereals, as they are lured into eating processed food that have some meat smell...
Strangely, not all breeds are affected equal, and lines in the same breed are not affected the same as others....
So I could believe in some genetics about diabetis.

But, the genetic part could be about not tolerating well having starch in the diet!
(especially when you see nordic dogs that are affected, who are more recent in eating something else than meat)
So, what is genetic? Maybe not diabetis itself...

 

[lvysaur]

A very simple argument against the obsession with genes can come from darwinism itself.

If there are individuals with "static" genomes, and individuals with "dynamic, intelligent" ones, which ones would be more fit? Obviously the dynamic genomes, because they would be able to adapt to various problems.

We already know that the genome is dynamic, via epigenetics. So we know that the genome can change. We know that the body's cells are intelligent. So it is almost certain that the genome can intelligently change, increasing fitness without natural selection.

 

[lvysaur]

But, the genetic part could be about not tolerating well having starch in the diet!
(especially when you see nordic dogs that are affected, who are more recent in eating something else than meat)

In humans, people with low salivary amylase tend to also be predisposed to obesity. This is counterintuitive, because low amylase should mean less calories obtained from starch.

It could be a correlation with another gene (maybe people with a more "hunter" genome tend to have both low amylase and obesity), or it could be that undigested starch causes obesity.

 

[Xisca]

Well, undigested starch can still be of some use if people have the right bugs in the colon to still get some calories of it, as of prebiotics or resistant strach?

Or undigestied starch is a stress and a source of endotoxins, and the body shift to fatty acids too quick when running out of sugar?

In dogs, it is clearly the starch content that is the problem, because they do not have such a pancreas as us. And diabetic dogs are not necessarily fat! Of course dogs do not chew, they swallow and have no salivary amilase to my knowledge.

 

[Lucenzo01]

The question I ask is: what cause diabetes type 1 and how to treat it? Has anyone ever cured diabetes type 1?