Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 1:25 pm Very good ..yes, you are what you eat.

Of course. That's why all cows are green and vegans look like prunes.

Sculptor

Did you read the reference you gave https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about_us/ne ... lence-2021

Type 2 diabetes is a complex condition with multiple risk factors.

There are things outside an individual’s control that contribute to their risk, such as age, family history and ethnicity.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 6:11 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 1:25 pm Very good ..yes, you are what you eat.

Of course. That's why all cows are green and vegans look like prunes.

From inside a cow, it's hard to get a good handle on what's happening.
From inside a vegan, it's hard to get a good handle on what's happening.
When artifically placing the many layers of what is always an optical and auditory illusion of sound heard as WORDS upon the quantum nature of life, which is timeless and thoughtless, and a moment in the mind, which is time-filled and thought-filled in the same instant.The futility of basing false mental constructs of past, present or future upon what is always this eternal now, helps us understand that to let go of these mental concepts is to be free.

Eat your words, and be careful not to spit-up while ruminating... as the proverbial saying goes.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 8:01 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 6:11 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 1:25 pm Very good ..yes, you are what you eat.

Of course. That's why all cows are green and vegans look like prunes.

From inside a cow, it's hard to get a good handle on what's happening.
From inside a vegan, it's hard to get a good handle on what's happening.
When artifically placing the many layers of what is always an optical and auditory illusion of sound heard as WORDS upon the quantum nature of life, which is timeless and thoughtless, and a moment in the mind, which is time-filled and thought-filled in the same instant.The futility of basing false mental constructs of past, present or future upon what is always this eternal now, helps us understand that to let go of these mental concepts is to be free.

Eat your words, and be careful not to spit-up while ruminating... as the proverbial saying goes.

Sounds like a lot of cud to me.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 12:34 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 8:01 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Mar 27, 2022 6:11 pm
Of course. That's why all cows are green and vegans look like prunes.

From inside a cow, it's hard to get a good handle on what's happening.
From inside a vegan, it's hard to get a good handle on what's happening.
When artifically placing the many layers of what is always an optical and auditory illusion of sound heard as WORDS upon the quantum nature of life, which is timeless and thoughtless, and a moment in the mind, which is time-filled and thought-filled in the same instant.The futility of basing false mental constructs of past, present or future upon what is always this eternal now, helps us understand that to let go of these mental concepts is to be free.

Eat your words, and be careful not to spit-up while ruminating... as the proverbial saying goes.

Sounds like a lot of cud to me.

It cud be, who knows.

This article from the respected British Medical Journal is devastating to the standard low fat advice still being spewed out by the medical profession because of a thing called "Standard of Care".

Saturated fat is not the major issue

BMJ 2013; 347 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6340 (Published 22 October 2013)
Cite this as: BMJ 2013;347:f6340

Scientists universally accept that trans fats—found in many fast foods, bakery products, and margarines—increase the risk of cardiovascular disease through inflammatory processes.1 But “saturated fat” is another story. The mantra that saturated fat must be removed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease has dominated dietary advice and guidelines for almost four decades.

Yet scientific evidence shows that this advice has, paradoxically, increased our cardiovascular risks. Furthermore, the government’s obsession with levels of total cholesterol, which has led to the overmedication of millions of people with statins, has diverted our attention from the more egregious risk factor of atherogenic dyslipidaemia.

Saturated fat has been demonised ever since Ancel Keys’s landmark “seven countries” study in 1970.2 This concluded that a correlation existed between the incidence of coronary heart disease and total cholesterol concentrations, which then correlated with the proportion of energy provided by saturated fat. But correlation is not causation. Nevertheless, we were advised to cut fat intake to 30% of total energy and saturated fat to 10%.”3 The aspect of dietary saturated fat that is believed to have the greatest influence on cardiovascular risk is elevated concentrations of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Yet the reduction in LDL cholesterol from reducing saturated fat intake seems to be specific to large, buoyant (type A) LDL particles, when in fact it is the small, dense (type B) particles (responsive to carbohydrate intake) that are implicated in cardiovascular disease.4

Indeed, recent prospective cohort studies have not supported any significant association between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular risk.5 Instead, saturated fat has been found to be protective. The source of the saturated fat may be important. Dairy foods are exemplary providers of vitamins A and D. As well as a link between vitamin D deficiency and a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular mortality, calcium and phosphorus found commonly in dairy foods may have antihypertensive effects that may contribute to inverse associations with cardiovascular risk.6 7 8 One study showed that higher concentrations of plasma trans-palmitoleic acid, a fatty acid mainly found in dairy foods, was associated with higher concentrations of high density lipoprotein, lower concentrations of triglycerides and C reactive protein, reduced insulin resistance, and a lower incidence of diabetes in adults.9 Red meat is another major source of saturated fat. Consumption of processed meats, but not red meat, has been associated with coronary heart disease and diabetes mellitus, which may be explained by nitrates and sodium as preservatives.10

The notoriety of fat is based on its higher energy content per gram in comparison with protein and carbohydrate. However, work by the biochemist Richard Feinman and nuclear physicist Eugene Fine on thermodynamics and the metabolic advantage of different diet compositions showed that the body did not metabolise different macronutrients in the same way.11 Kekwick and Pawan carried out one of the earliest obesity experiments, published in the Lancet in 1956.12 They compared groups consuming diets of 90% fat, 90% protein, and 90% carbohydrate and showed that the greatest weight loss was in the fat consuming group. The authors concluded that the “composition of the diet appeared to outweigh in importance the intake of calories.”

The “calorie is not a calorie” theory has been further substantiated by a recent JAMA study showing that a “low fat” diet resulted in the greatest decrease in energy expenditure, an unhealthy lipid pattern, and increased insulin resistance in comparison with a low carbohydrate and low glycaemic index diet.13 In the past 30 years in the United States the proportion of energy from consumed fat has fallen from 40% to 30% (although absolute fat consumption has remained the same), yet obesity has rocketed.

One reason: when you take the fat out, the food tastes worse. The food industry compensated by replacing saturated fat with added sugar. The scientific evidence is mounting that sugar is a possible independent risk factor for the metabolic syndrome (the cluster of hypertension, dysglycaemia, raised triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol, and increased waist circumference).

In previous generations cardiovascular disease existed largely in isolation. Now two thirds of people admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction really have metabolic syndrome—but 75% of these patients have completely normal total cholesterol concentrations.14 Maybe this is because total cholesterol isn’t really the problem?

The Framingham heart study sanctified total cholesterol as a risk factor for coronary artery disease, making statins the second most prescribed drug in the US and driving a multibillion dollar global industry. In the United Kingdom eight million people take statins regularly, up from five million 10 years ago. With 60 million statin prescriptions a year, it is difficult to demonstrate any additional effect of statins on reduced cardiovascular mortality over the effects of the decline in smoking prevalence and primary angioplasty.15

Despite the common belief that high cholesterol is a significant risk factor for coronary artery disease, several independent population studies in healthy adults have shown that low total cholesterol is associated with cardiovascular and non-cardiac mortality, indicating that high total cholesterol is not a risk factor in a healthy population.16 17 18

A recent “real world” study of 150 000 patients who were taking statins showed “unacceptable” side effects—including myalgia, gastrointestinal upset, sleep and memory disturbance, and erectile dysfunction—in 20% of participants, resulting in discontinuation of the drug.19 This is massively at odds with the major statin trials that report significant side effects of myopathy or muscle pain in only one in 10 000.

A meta-analysis of predominantly industry sponsored data reported that in a low risk group of people aged 60-70 years taking statins the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one cardiovascular event in one year was 345.20 The strongest evidence base for statins is in secondary prevention, where all patients after a myocardial infarction are prescribed maximum dose treatment irrespective of total cholesterol, because of statins’ anti-inflammatory or pleiotropic (coronary plaque stabilising) effects. In this group the NNT is 83 for mortality over five years. This doesn’t mean that each patient benefits a little but rather that 82 will receive no prognostic benefit.21 The fact that no other cholesterol lowering drug has shown a benefit in terms of mortality supports the hypothesis that the benefits of statins are independent of their effects on cholesterol.

Adopting a Mediterranean diet after a heart attack is almost three times as powerful in reducing mortality as taking a statin. The recently published PREDIMED randomised controlled trial was stopped early after it showed that in high risk people the Mediterranean diet achieved a 30% improvement over a “low fat” diet in terms of cardiovascular events.22

Pharmacotherapy can assuage the symptoms but can’t alter the pathophysiology. Doctors need to embrace prevention as well as treatment. The greatest improvements in morbidity and mortality have been due not to personal responsibility but rather to public health. It is time to bust the myth of the role of saturated fat in heart disease and wind back the harms of dietary advice that has contributed to obesity.

Notes
Cite this as: BMJ 2013;347:f6340

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:21 pm This video is a critique of the standard understanding of diabetes and brings up a few issues about the philosophy of science and how it is used for the treatment of the diabetes pandemic.

So if you have diabetes, or is you think you shall become diabetic in the future watch this because it could save your life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wXWEdipBEg

This is a good video. This doctor has many other good videos related mainly to cardiovascular diseases and other health matters.

There are other tons of other good videos out there at present which counters the currently accepted norms [of "evil" recommendations].

The point is the current Western Diet [high Carb, low fat] is SO BAD resulting in obesity, diabetes, heart diseases, Metabolic Syndrome that any "reasonable" contra diet to it will results in improvements in one's health.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:21 pm This video is a critique of the standard understanding of diabetes and brings up a few issues about the philosophy of science and how it is used for the treatment of the diabetes pandemic.

This is not exactly 'Philosophy of Science'.

• Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science.

Rather this thread is more appropriately the 'Philosophy of Diabetes' or Philosophy of Health or Nutrition within the main set 'Philosophy'.

'Philosophy' is defined as the love of wisdom and use of whatever tools in contributing to the optimal well-beings of the individual[s] and thus to humanity.

In this case, what we know about diabetes is knowledge and how to apply this knowledge is wisdom, i.e. philosophy.
Whilst some knowledge is sufficient it would be preferable if we were to dig deeper [in the deepest possible] into the root causes.

Reference below is only to Type Two Diabetes.

What is Type Two Diabetes?

• A fasting blood sugar level less than 100 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L) is normal.
  A fasting blood sugar level from 100 to 125 mg/dL (5.6 to 6.9 mmol/L) is considered prediabetes.
  If it's 126 mg/dL (7 mmol/L) or higher on two separate tests, you have diabetes.
  Link:

Another diagnosis for Type II Diabetes is;

• Glycated hemoglobin (A1C) test. This blood test, which doesn't require fasting, indicates your average blood sugar level for the past two to three months. It measures the percentage of blood sugar attached to hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protein in red blood cells.
  The higher your blood sugar levels, the more hemoglobin you'll have with sugar attached. ..An A1C level of 6.5% or higher on two separate tests indicates that you have diabetes.
  .. An A1C between 5.7 and 6.4 % indicates prediabetes.
  .. Below 5.7 is considered normal.

There are many variables contributing to the above measurements but the main variables are the food intake one eat on a daily basis.

Each type of food has its own Glycermic Index [GI] or Glycermic Load.
Thus if one eat a lot of food with high GI and GL, one will have a high glucose count after the food intake.
The continual intake of high GI food will develop Insulin Resistance which will sustain high glucose readings [>7] or high AIC [>5.7] readings.

Since there is a direct cause between high GI or GL food to high Glucose and AIC readings, then avoiding or monitoring high GI or GL will enable one to maintain one's glucose readings [7 or lower] or AIC [5.7] readings to prevent one from being a diabetic.

So in principle, not getting diabetes is SO easy as 1 + 1 = 2, but in practice it is not as easy as it seems. But at least such a principle provides hopes for those who want to avoid being a diabetic.

So the solution is just avoid eating high GI or GL laden food.
What are these food?

Here is how we can tackle and prevent diabetes with objectivity and reasonable certainty.

Here is a listing of GI for various food.
https://healthjade.net/wp-content/uploa ... hart-1.jpg

Whenever we take a meal of high GI, the glucose readings are effective and can be measured using a glucoMeter half to two hours after the meal.
https://www.diabetes.ascensia.com/sitea ... es_png.png

Thus if one measure the glucose reading after every meal [high in carbs, e.g. white flour, potatoes] and if the readings are always above 126 mg/dL (7 mmol/L) or higher, say 300 mg/dL (10 mmol/L) or higher at all times, then one is likely to end up as a diabetic after a certain period.
Generally it takes about >10 years of exposure to high GI carbs for T-II diabetes to manifest.

However if one we to take food that are low in GI and ensure the glucose readings after every meal is lower than 100 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L) at all times, then one will NEVER has the probability to be diabetic on an objective basis.

At present there is the Continuous Glucose Monitor where one can monitor one's glucose reading 24 hours.

Thus for every intake of food, one will be able to immediate see the impact of glucose on one's body.
Therefore if one were to take only food that do not exceed the normal limit of 100 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L) at all times, then one will NEVER has the probability to be diabetic on an objective basis.

In this case, one's HbAIC [the more effective measure of diabetes] will never exceed 5.7-6.4 to indicate one is a diabetic.

The above is the general guideline to ensure one will never be a diabetic.
However, one can once in a while take food that exceed the limit which is not likely to have an impact to turn one to be a diabetic.

The above is thus the Very Objective Approach to Prevent T-II Diabetes.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:44 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:21 pm This video is a critique of the standard understanding of diabetes and brings up a few issues about the philosophy of science and how it is used for the treatment of the diabetes pandemic.

This is not exactly 'Philosophy of Science'.

• Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science.

Rather this thread is more appropriately the 'Philosophy of Diabetes' or Philosophy of Health or Nutrition within the main set 'Philosophy'.

'Philosophy' is defined as the love of wisdom and use of whatever tools in contributing to the optimal well-beings of the individual[s] and thus to humanity.

In this case, what we know about diabetes is knowledge and how to apply this knowledge is wisdom, i.e. philosophy.
Whilst some knowledge is sufficient it would be preferable if we were to dig deeper [in the deepest possible] into the root causes.

You are such a dickhead.
You were so keen to demonstrate your copy&Paste skills that you did not bother to read what you were responding to.
Try again.
You are just making a damn fool of yourself because you think yourself so clever you do not know how childish you appear to others.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 7:41 am Here is how we can tackle and prevent diabetes with objectivity and reasonable certainty.

Your response does not reference any issues concerning the philosophy of science.
Please stop dumping your copy&paste BS on the thread.
If you do not want to discuss the philosophical problems of science that this issue brings up then find another thread.
Better still find another Forum.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 10:37 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:44 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:21 pm This video is a critique of the standard understanding of diabetes and brings up a few issues about the philosophy of science and how it is used for the treatment of the diabetes pandemic.

This is not exactly 'Philosophy of Science'.

• Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science.

Rather this thread is more appropriately the 'Philosophy of Diabetes' or Philosophy of Health or Nutrition within the main set 'Philosophy'.

'Philosophy' is defined as the love of wisdom and use of whatever tools in contributing to the optimal well-beings of the individual[s] and thus to humanity.

In this case, what we know about diabetes is knowledge and how to apply this knowledge is wisdom, i.e. philosophy.
Whilst some knowledge is sufficient it would be preferable if we were to dig deeper [in the deepest possible] into the root causes.

You are such a dickhead.
You were so keen to demonstrate your copy&Paste skills that you did not bother to read what you were responding to.
Try again.
You are just making a damn fool of yourself because you think yourself so clever you do not know how childish you appear to others.

What are you talking about.

You are wrong in stating the treatment of diabetes is about 'Philosophy of Science'.
My point is, discussing the treatment of diabetes in not about 'Philosophy of Science'.
I gave a link to what 'philosophy of science' is about.
What is wrong with that?

copy & Paste skills??
Reread your posts and find out you are the one who is doing most of the copy and Paste.
So far, I have only provided links in accompanying my views.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 10:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 7:41 am Here is how we can tackle and prevent diabetes with objectivity and reasonable certainty.

Your response does not reference any issues concerning the philosophy of science.
Please stop dumping your copy&paste BS on the thread.
If you do not want to discuss the philosophical problems of science that this issue brings up then find another thread.
Better still find another Forum.

My point is, discussing the treatment of diabetes in not about 'Philosophy of Science'.
I gave a link to what 'philosophy of science' is about.
What is wrong with that?

You are wrong in stating the treatment of diabetes is about 'Philosophy of Science'.
As I had stated, the prevention of diabetes should be dealt within 'Philosophy of Diabetes' not as Philosophy of Science.
In this case, within the Philosophy of Diabetes, we can dig further into the root causes and why the earlier batches of scientists and doctors were wrong in their recommendations in the prevention and treatment of diabetes.

Here is a philosophical point about 'the Philosophy of Diabetes'.

The typical doctor will often recommend that a reading of glucose 5.6 is normal, even if it is slightly above 5.7 is nothing to worry about.

Actually the ideal glucose reading should be 4.0. The most optimal range should be 4.0 to 4.5 or at most not >5.0.
But there is a danger with 4.0 because anything less than 4.0 could lead to hypoglycemia which could be fatal.
As such if a doctor recommends his patient to aim for 4.0 to 4.5 there is a danger of the patient not managing their glucose levels well and that could lead to death and the doctor could be sue for negligence.

Therefore it is safer for a doctor to recommend a higher limit of 5.6 as normal where there is a lesser chance of fatality, i.e. security for the doctor.

But the problem of recommending 5.6 as normal has a greater chance for the patient to be pre-diabetic and subsequently diabetic but the dangers are not immediate and any eventual problems years later cannot be blamed on the doctor.

Thus for any individual to aim for a more safer position to prevent diabetes and the associated metabolic syndrome, one should manage one's glucose levels or HBA1C between 4.0 to 4.5. But this approach requires one to have sufficient knowledge and precision which is not practical for the majority at present.