Hello all,
I read in a newspaper that ANTHOCYAN (made from wild blueberrys) can avoid
diabetes-caused blindness. Anyone who knows more about this ?
Any suggestions welcome,
Gerrit.
———————–
telk…@eis.cs.tu-bs.de
Hello all,
I read in a newspaper that ANTHOCYAN (made from wild blueberrys) can avoid
diabetes-caused blindness. Anyone who knows more about this ?
Any suggestions welcome,
Gerrit.
———————–
telk…@eis.cs.tu-bs.de
>Date: 9 JAN 1996 17:54:28 GMT
>From: Gerrit Telkamp <telk…@eis.cs.tu-bs.de>
>Newsgroups: misc.health.diabetes
>Subject: blindness
>I read in a newspaper that ANTHOCYAN (made from wild blueberrys) can avoid
>diabetes-caused blindness. Anyone who knows more about this ?
Gerrit,
It sounds like you are referring to a type blueberry known in the U.S. as
Bilberry (Vacinium myrtillus). The anthocyanosides from Bilberry have
been shown to speed up the regeneration of rhodopsin (helpful for night
vision), improve the operation of enzymes important in retinal cellular
function, increase the resistance of blood capillaries. Other chemicals
in Bilberry may provide a synergistic action. Animal experiments and
studies on small numbers of humans have shown it to be useful for
protecting against and treating macular degeneration.
Bilberry fruit is commonly sold in Europe as concentrated, standardized
extracts with anthocyanosides at levels of 25%. Apparently, traditional
dry bilberry extracts contain only 1-2% anthocyanosides. My sense is
that for treating macular degeneration, glaucoma, etc., the concentrated,
standardized extract would be useful. I’m not a big fan of *long-term*
use of highly concentrated extracts as preventative measures.
I have read that there are also standard herbal/vitamin preparations sold
to diabetics in Europe that contain Bilberry as one of the ingredients.
Bilberry leaves are used in herbal formulas to help treat hyperglycemia in
diabetics. I suggest visiting an experienced Herbalist for a more
balanced herbal formula.
If I read your address correctly (telk…@eis.cs.tu-bs.de) and you are
writing from Germany, you can probably get more information from the
Kommission E. (Commission E) created by the Bundesgesundheitsant (Federal
Health Agency) to document the safety and efficacy of phytomedicines. I
don’t know their phone number, but I’m sure that local Herbalists can
direct you to more information.
You can read a short review with a number of older studies (1960s-1980s)
in the book, "Next Generation Herbal Medicine" by Daniel B. Mowrey, Ph.D.
Most herbal text would have more information on the subject; just look in
the index under "Vacinium myrtillus." If you are obsessively interested
in anthocyanosides (chemistry, physiology, chemotaxonomy, pharmacology,
biotechnology), you can purchase the book, "Anthocyanins in Fruits,
Vegetables, and Grains," by G. Mazza and E. Miniati from the American
Botanical Council (800-373-7105, herbbo…@aol.com) for a price of U.S.
$207.00.
Having said all of this, I believe that Bilberry is just one useful tool
in preventing/treating eye problems (fruit) and hyperglycemia (leaves).
There are a number of other things that can be done. Hope this helps.
Best Wishes,
- Mark
mg…@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/mgold/health.html
(Web articles on Food & Nutrition, Yoga, aspartame/NutraPoison,
sweetener resources, stevia, toxic carpeting, rBGH, fluoride
detoxification, mental health resources. Much more to come.
Lots of links to medical and holistic healing sites.
Will email articles if you do not have WWW access.
In article <30F2AB70.5…@sapien.com>,
Shannon James <shann…@sapien.com> wrote:
>Hi all,
>I’m relatively new to this Diabetes business (adult onset type 1) and
>just started taking insulin on Thanksgiving. One of the sypmtoms I had
>was "sudden weight loss" which I was thrilled about since I’ve had a
>weight problem most of my life. Unfortunately now that I’m taking
>insulin I’m gaining weight (rapidly!). I’m tempted to cut down on my
>insulin. Has anyone out there experienced this same thing?
>-Shannon
Hi Shannon – Whew! my favorite topic continues……….. this group
recently tossed around the question of weight gain on "intensive therapy". It
seems to me that there were more posts from people who HAD experienced a
weight gain than posts from those who had not. But, like everything else in
life, diabetes seems to be as individual as the individuals who have been
diagnosed with it.
Yes, that initial weight loss is delicious, isn’t it (altho the
fatigue that accompanied it wasn’t worth it to me)? After two years on
insulin, I have added 5 lbs to what was a life-long stable weight. If I can’t
reverse it, I’m determined to prevent it from increasing. I’m doing all the
right things like eating a healthy low fat diet and exercising daily and
keeping my bs as close to "normal" as possible. I personally think it was the
introduction of insulin that is responsible for the extra 5 lbs because I have
a previous lifetime track record of preventing weight gain, even during middle
age.
I did realize that I was eating my biggest meal as a late dinner,
right before I got horizontal for the night. That was a glaring mistake
as I wasn’t burning those calories off with any kind of exercise
post-meal. I’ve corrected that as an attempt to lose those five pounds. A
kind member of this group e-mailed me a cute saying that makes a lot of sense
to me and I’m following it now:
Eat breakfast like a king, eat lunch like a prince, and eat dinner
like a pauper. This would seem to better address the fact that I am active
and burning calories more in the morning and afternoon than at night. Hope
this helps. I know how you feel, believe me! cindy
p.s. guess we could switch to queen and princess in our cases :=)
In article <30F2AB70.5…@sapien.com> shann…@sapien.com "Shannon James" writes:
> Hi all,
> I’m relatively new to this Diabetes business (adult onset type 1) and
> just started taking insulin on Thanksgiving. One of the sypmtoms I had
> was "sudden weight loss" which I was thrilled about since I’ve had a
> weight problem most of my life. Unfortunately now that I’m taking
> insulin I’m gaining weight (rapidly!). I’m tempted to cut down on my
> insulin. Has anyone out there experienced this same thing?
> -Shannon
As I was diagnosed at 7, and am now 32, naturally, I’ve gained some
weight!
I wouldn’t recommend that you cut your insulin: if you are currently
balanced, then it will mean that some CHO you eat will not be metabolised,
and will chug around your body and then be peed out of it.
This may seem like a Good Thing in that it means you will loose weight,
but is actually a Bad Thing, because it will elevate your blood glucose
out of the ‘normal’ range, and this is more likely to lead to complications
in the long-term, and generally feeling bad in the short term, than
staying within the range.
To reduce your weight, you need not only to reduce the insulin, but
also reduce the carbohydrates. So that the proportion of calories
from carbohydrates and calories from other sources remain the same,
you will need to cut down on fat and alcahol too. Tell your doctor that
you want to move to a lower cho/calorie diet, and they, or their
dietician will be able to advise one.
–
Patricia Reynolds
Keeper of Social History, Buckinghamshire County Museum / Freelance Curator
16 Gibsons Green
Heelands
Milton Keynes
MK13 7NH
ENGLAND
p…@caerlas.demon.co.uk
In a previous article, shann…@sapien.com (Shannon James) says:
>Hi all,
>I’m relatively new to this Diabetes business (adult onset type 1) and
>just started taking insulin on Thanksgiving. One of the sypmtoms I had
>was "sudden weight loss" which I was thrilled about since I’ve had a
>weight problem most of my life. Unfortunately now that I’m taking
>insulin I’m gaining weight (rapidly!). I’m tempted to cut down on my
>insulin. Has anyone out there experienced this same thing?
Sudden weight loss is indeed one of the major symptoms of undiagnosed
DM. Now that you’re taking insulin and allowing your body to
metabolize the food and energy it needs, it’s normal for your
weight to go back up to "normal." If you want to keep the weight off —
or at least some of it — you will have to reduce your caloric intake.
This will probably decrease your need for insulin. So there’s no
substitute for close bg monitoring during this period of
adjustment. In other words, using insulin is merely restoring your
ability to use diet as a means of weight control. The burden is now yours.
–
David Cohler, South Pasadena
In article <30F2AB70.5…@sapien.com>, Shannon James <shann…@sapien.com> writes:
=I’m relatively new to this Diabetes business (adult onset type 1) and
=just started taking insulin on Thanksgiving. One of the sypmtoms I had
=was "sudden weight loss" which I was thrilled about since I’ve had a
=weight problem most of my life. Unfortunately now that I’m taking
=insulin I’m gaining weight (rapidly!). I’m tempted to cut down on my
=insulin. Has anyone out there experienced this same thing?
It’s not at all uncommon. And the temptation to cut down on your insulin is
probably a good one, though you’ll also want to cut down on food. Remember:
Prior to getting your diabetes under control, you were literally pissing away
much of the caloric content of what you were eating. The insulin you’re
injecting is allowing you to metabolize the sugar that was previously being
eliminated through the urine. That means in order to keep your weight stable,
you’ve got to cut down your caloric intake. Of course, as you reduce your
caloric intake, the insulin required to metabolize the lower amount of
carbohydrates is also less. So you can’t simply stick with the amount of
insulin that was required to normalize your blood sugar levels when you were
eating what you were before beginning insulin therapy. You’ve got to adjust
your food intake and your insulin dosage together. It can take a while to
figure out what combination of insulin, diet, and exercise is necessary for you
to maintain a stable weight. But it IS possible to maintain a stable weight
while maintaining tight control via insulin injections.
—————————————————————————
I try very hard to say exactly what I mean. I’d appreciate it if you’d
bear that in mind and not try to "interpret" my posts to fit your own
preconceived notions if I’m posting in a serious thread. Remember: If you
throw a strawman into a heated debate, flames are likely to be the result.
Shannon James <shann…@sapien.com> wrote:
>Hi all,
>I’m relatively new to this Diabetes business (adult onset type 1) and
>just started taking insulin on Thanksgiving. One of the sypmtoms I had
>was "sudden weight loss" which I was thrilled about since I’ve had a
>weight problem most of my life. Unfortunately now that I’m taking
>insulin I’m gaining weight (rapidly!). I’m tempted to cut down on my
>insulin. Has anyone out there experienced this same thing?
>-Shannon
Hi Shannon,
I’ve been on insulin for 6 years now. If you’re gaining weight,
you are eating too much, or not active enough. When you are on
insulin, everything that you eat gets deposited on yourself. If you
eat less, and get insulin attacks, shoot LESS insulin. Eventually, you
will find the right combination.
RON…..r…@computer.net
**********************************************************
RON GOLDSTEIN—KA2IIA
******
STAY YOUNG—DRIVE A VINTAGE 427 CORVETTE
KEEP YOUR MIND ACTIVE–BECOME AN AMATEUR RADIO OPERATOR
I have a rather detailed statement on peakless insulin that develops
from a short discussion on "insulin and weight gain".
On 9 Jan 1996 be…@primenet.com wrote:
> In article <30F2AB70.5…@sapien.com>,
> Shannon James <shann…@sapien.com> wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >I’m relatively new to this Diabetes business (adult onset type 1) and
> >just started taking insulin on Thanksgiving. One of the sypmtoms I had
> >was "sudden weight loss" which I was thrilled about since I’ve had a
> >weight problem most of my life. Unfortunately now that I’m taking
> >insulin I’m gaining weight (rapidly!). I’m tempted to cut down on my
> >insulin. Has anyone out there experienced this same thing?
> >-Shannon
First of all, I would like to comment on the above.
I too started out my Type I, insulin dependent diabetes with the classic
"sudden weight loss". However, there are other ways that weight can be lost
besides the real burning of fat. It is practically impossible to burn fat
fast enough to account for a sudden weight loss, since burning fat
requires the expenditure of about 3000 calories for every single pound of
the stuff that is shed. Well, yes, under the condition of the onset of
Type I diabetes, a certain amount of fat IS burned, as evidenced by
ketones in the urine. But most of the weight loss under these
circumstances is due to loss of fluids (water), and a newcomer to Type I
diabetes can really get dehydrated.
As I recall, my weight returned to near normal within 6 weeks. I had
lost about 15 lbs. So what I think is happening to you is quite probably
the same that happened to me: you have been rehydrating yourself, something
that is quite normal under the circumstances, and which will aid greatly in
controlling and stabilizing your blood sugar levels. It is not a sign in
itself to diminish your insulin dosage.
> Hi Shannon – Whew! my favorite topic continues……….. this group
> recently tossed around the question of weight gain on "intensive therapy". It
> seems to me that there were more posts from people who HAD experienced a
> weight gain than posts from those who had not. But, like everything else in
> life, diabetes seems to be as individual as the individuals who have been
> diagnosed with it.
That is a different type of weight gain, the type that requires the
*storing* of 3000 calories per pound. This type of putting on weight
takes many weeks and months to accomplish, but it can really sneak up on
people.
> Yes, that initial weight loss is delicious, isn’t it (altho the
> fatigue that accompanied it wasn’t worth it to me)? After two years on
> insulin, I have added 5 lbs to what was a life-long stable weight. If I can’t
> reverse it, I’m determined to prevent it from increasing. I’m doing all the
> right things like eating a healthy low fat diet and exercising daily and
> keeping my bs as close to "normal" as possible. I personally think it was the
> introduction of insulin that is responsible for the extra 5 lbs because I have
> a previous lifetime track record of preventing weight gain, even during middle
> age.
Two explanations of gaining 5 pounds in 2 years are possible:
1) Most people do experience sooner or later some increase in their weight.
2) Using multiple daily injections of insulin every day of varying doses
can contribute to weight gain. This is because every time a person raises
their insulin level to make a surplus of blood glucose disappear, the body
has the option of storing the extra calories (which it couldn’t use) as fat.
True, most everyone thinks (a) the insulin just anihilates the glucose (it
doesn’t and it can’t), OR (b) the insulin simply stores the glucose in the
liver. (Which it does, but there is a limit to what the liver can hold,
and when that limit is reached, then the fat storage mechanism has to be
triggered. This is not true just of diabetics but of all people who
habitually consume more food than they need, and this is just
common knowledge of physiology.)
How do people avoid putting on weight (I have weighed the same from
17 to almost 49 now, and have been a severely insulin-dependent Type I
diabetic all that time who has taken insulin every single day)? It’s the
old game as told by Moliere: "One must eat to live, not live to eat".
And I have used my insulin management to my advantage in maintaining my
stable weight. By using PEAKLESS insulin, I have been able to find a
dosage of same that takes care of my daily needs, and once the really
correct amount is found, the dosage remains the same for *months*. One of
the reasons that people are always changing their daily dosage is the
fact that they have never found their correct dose in the first place
(and this takes study and practice to do). Contrary to widely-held
opinion, I and others like me have found that the insulin dosage does NOT
have to be fine-tuned every day for varying conditions. Like when I
exercise hard, I eat more. I need the food. When I’m quieter than
normal, I eat correspondingly less. I need less food. All the time,
the insulin taken remains the same. However, to follow this strategy,
you have to be able to say NO to the temptation of either overeating
or eating something that has too much sugar in it.
However, if and when I get ahead on my food (easy to accomplish through
either eating too much, OR being a little too quiet and not curtailing
my food intake enough), I do NOT normally reach for the insulin syringe.
I have other means of adjusting my blood sugar. The most usual one I
utilize is that since I have my insulin activity level working quite well
at all times, I simply delay or in the worst cases skip a meal. By
delaying my feeding, the insulin already there usually picks up and
lowers my blood sugar *faster* than an injection of Regular insulin can
do. And that way, the extra calories lying around in my bloodstream
actually get burned, not stored away some place where they could end up as
body fat.
However, I am NOT saying that the insulin management strategy of using
peakless insulins is for everyone: it will only work for those who
"eat to live". Those who prefer or are obliged to "live to eat" can
only survive with the fork in one hand and the insulin syringe in the
other. But the strategy we follow does have its advantages. Every
morning I load my syringe with a carefully determined and measured
amount of long acting insulin (Ultralente) which gives me my
round-the-clock basal level of insulin activity, followed in the same
syringe by a much shorter acting insulin (amorphous precipitate
rather than the crystals of Ultralente, equally carefully determined and
measured) which provides the stronger additional insulin activity needed
for dealing with the food I eat during the day (this insulin lasts 12-16
hours). This way, my colleagues and I normally take all of our insulin
just once every day. This is NOT solely for the sake of convenience
(yet it certainly is an improvement over MI), but is actually necessary
due to the nature of peakless insulin itself. The shorter the acting an
insulin is, the more injections per day are required, which results
necessarily in the insulin activity going up and down, hence the peaks.
It goes without saying that the smoother action of peakless insulin
contributes enormously to attaining much more stable levels of blood
glucose. And the actually observed results gleaned from
MI people comparing notes with [U and S] people (those who run on
one injection per day of Ultralente and Semilente) on how far
their blood sugar swings, the MI people for all their efforts at
intensive therapy (i.e. frequent injections of insulin) have far wider
ranges in their blood sugar. Even though the MIs can achieve great
A1C tests, that test only gives an evaluation of what the *average*
blood sugar is, not how far up and down it has been going. The
[U and S] people, on the other hand, can achieve much narrower
blood sugar ranges, and it is a matter of common sense, if not the
DCCT, that this is definitely to their advantage. (I myself practically
always run between 90 mg/dl out to 135 mg/dl or so after meals. This
is due solely to my insulin management, not to some physiological
quirk of mine of having abnormally stable blood sugar. The first
couple of years of my diabetes really showed how labile and unmanageable
my blood sugar was. Doctors gave up. I had to teach myself. Last
year, though, I learned that the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota has been
teaching people now for many, many years on how to manage their
insulin in this same manner using Ultralente and Semilente adjusted
and mixed separately, all in exchange for a mountain of money!)
(I would like to comment here parenthetically that whether an insulin
is peaky or peakless is NOT due to the source it comes from. I know that
there are many of you who are both surprised to hear this and are
equally surprised hearing it from ME. I have spent nearly a year
both studying the pharmacology of insulin on a graduate level,
AND doing my own laboratory research, as many of you may
have already guessed from my previous and sporatic postings on this
subject. Human insulin, although it does last shorter periods of
time than pork insulin, can be made to have a peakless pattern.
Case in point is Lilly’s Humulin U (Ultralente) which they now
manufacture with a time specification of up to *28* hours, a sufficient
span that will enable its users to take it only once a day, thereby
eliminating the gross overlaps caused by taking it twice a day, which
themselves (the overlaps) greatly contribute to peaks and valleys in one’s
insulin activity level. On the other hand, while amorphous precipitate does
NOT at present exist in the Lilly Humulin line (they should have
one called Humulin S [for Semilente]), it is child’s play to make the
insulin in a Humulin R vial turn into amorphous precipitate
…
read more »
On 28 Jan 1996, Speaker-to-Minerals wrote:
> In article <4eegs0$…@detroit.freenet.org>, aa…@detroit.freenet.org (John F Davis) writes:
> =
> =In a previous article, m…@cts.com (Michel Martin Devine) says:
> =
> =>An acquaintance of mine who has now finished his doctorate in pharmacology
> =>has told me that he can’t fathom why the world of insulin has moved back
> =>to the shorter acting, peaky forms. After all, he tells me, in every
> =>other medication on this planet whose continuous presence and action
> =>is strategic for the survival of the patient (insulin for Type I diabetics
> =>certainly falls into this category), the whole idea is to make it in some
> =>form of "time-release". This they originally did with insulin starting back
> =>as far as 1936.
> =
The following is a reply by John F. Davis of Delightful Detroit, not
me, Michel Martin Devine. For me, still a little cryptic.
> =That one is easy to answer Michael. Sing this (Old Time Religion)
> =
> = Though the love of it roots EVIL
> = Still there’s those who seem to feel though
> = That ALMIGHTY GOD’s A DOLLAR
> = And there’s not enough for me.
Now here’s Lydik!
> Or, if one has sufficient intelligence to understand that one need not come up
> with a conspiracy theory for every event in the world, and if one abandon’s
> Mickey’s thorougoing stupidity, one need simply make the observation:
> The body’s demand for insulin is, itself, peaky.
How can two peaky patterns ever coincide:
> Would Mickey recommend that oxygen be rationed in such a way as to be delivered
> only at the average rate required, so that one gets exactly as much oxygen
> while sleeping as one does while running? If not, then why does Mickey insist
> that insulin SHOULD be delivered in that way?
Lydik didn’t read all my posting with comprehension, did he? I can’t
help it if he can’t read or won’t read, can I?
Please just refer back, ladies and gentlemen, to this person’s previous
remarks on other people’s postings. This reply of his is just typical
of many of the previous ones he has made.
Bottom line: don’t pay any attention to him. I used to, but now I no
longer feel the urge. I’m sure that I am not alone on this.
In a previous article, m…@cts.com (Michel Martin Devine) says:
>An acquaintance of mine who has now finished his doctorate in pharmacology
>has told me that he can’t fathom why the world of insulin has moved back
>to the shorter acting, peaky forms. After all, he tells me, in every
>other medication on this planet whose continuous presence and action
>is strategic for the survival of the patient (insulin for Type I diabetics
>certainly falls into this category), the whole idea is to make it in some
>form of "time-release". This they originally did with insulin starting back
>as far as 1936.
That one is easy to answer Michael. Sing this (Old Time Religion)
Though the love of it roots EVIL
Still there’s those who seem to feel though
That ALMIGHTY GOD’s A DOLLAR
And there’s not enough for me.
PROFIT. "Human" insulins are faster acting than animal source. Where
animal LENTE once acted 24-30 hours or more today HUMAN Ultra Lente
(Ultra Tard) is stretching it to make 24 hrs and still be acting.
(regular LENTE is 20-22 hrs MAX in all but a few patients).
But even though it’s CHEEPER to produce the syntehic "HUMAN" they were
able to get away with RAISING the price for it beacuse "Human Is Better"
(Perhaps for Lilly and NOVO. It’s not been proven better for over 90%
of the diabetics who use it (it has been for 6%, and worse for 6%) )
—
John F Davis In Delightful Detroit, Mi. aa…@detroit.freenet.org
"Nothing adds excitement to your life like something
that is clearly none of your business!" Battista
In article <4eegs0$…@detroit.freenet.org>, aa…@detroit.freenet.org (John F Davis) writes:
=
=In a previous article, m…@cts.com (Michel Martin Devine) says:
=
=>An acquaintance of mine who has now finished his doctorate in pharmacology
=>has told me that he can’t fathom why the world of insulin has moved back
=>to the shorter acting, peaky forms. After all, he tells me, in every
=>other medication on this planet whose continuous presence and action
=>is strategic for the survival of the patient (insulin for Type I diabetics
=>certainly falls into this category), the whole idea is to make it in some
=>form of "time-release". This they originally did with insulin starting back
=>as far as 1936.
=
=That one is easy to answer Michael. Sing this (Old Time Religion)
=
= Though the love of it roots EVIL
= Still there’s those who seem to feel though
= That ALMIGHTY GOD’s A DOLLAR
= And there’s not enough for me.
Or, if one has sufficient intelligence to understand that one need not come up
with a conspiracy theory for every event in the world, and if one abandon’s
Mickey’s thorougoing stupidity, one need simply make the observation:
The body’s demand for insulin is, itself, peaky.
Would Mickey recommend that oxygen be rationed in such a way as to be delivered
only at the average rate required, so that one gets exactly as much oxygen
while sleeping as one does while running? If not, then why does Mickey insist
that insulin SHOULD be delivered in that way?
—————————————————————————
I try very hard to say exactly what I mean. I’d appreciate it if you’d
bear that in mind and not try to "interpret" my posts to fit your own
preconceived notions if I’m posting in a serious thread. Remember: If you
throw a strawman into a heated debate, flames are likely to be the result.
Ok, Mickey, I’m not Carl, so maybe you can give my answer to this a pass
through the critical thinking areas of your brain before throwing it out?
In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.960127225510.22852A-100…@crash.cts.com>,
Michel Martin Devine <m…@cts.com> wrote:
>On 28 Jan 1996, Speaker-to-Minerals wrote:
>> =In a previous article, m…@cts.com (Michel Martin Devine) says:
>> =
>> =>An acquaintance of mine who has now finished his doctorate in pharmacology
>> =>has told me that he can’t fathom why the world of insulin has moved back
>> =>to the shorter acting, peaky forms. After all, he tells me, in every
>> =>other medication on this planet whose continuous presence and action
>> =>is strategic for the survival of the patient (insulin for Type I diabetics
>> =>certainly falls into this category), the whole idea is to make it in some
>> =>form of "time-release". This they originally did with insulin starting
>> =>back as far as 1936.
>> =
The problem with this strategy, where insulin is concerned, is that the
body does *not* need a constant level of insulin — it needs more when
there’s more sugar in the bloodstream, less when there’s less. That’s
why, when nothing’s broken, the pancreas releases insulin *in response to
eating*.
>Now here’s Lydik!
>> Or, if one has sufficient intelligence to understand that one need not come
>> up with a conspiracy theory for every event in the world, and if one
>> abandon’s Mickey’s thorougoing stupidity, one need simply make the
>> observation:
>> The body’s demand for insulin is, itself, peaky.
>How can two peaky patterns ever coincide:
Well, when someone doesn’t have diabetes, the peaks in insulin levels and
blood sugar levels coincide quite nicely; it’s called a feedback loop.
Part of what glucometers are *for* is to make it possible for someone to
simulate this feedback loop with injected/pumped insulin. It ain’t
perfect, but, imo, for someone with a moderately normal eating pattern, it’s
much better than a flat insulin level.
And it’s certainly *better* to have both short-acting and long-acting
forms of insulin available than to have *only* longacting forms
available, since that allows people to use what works best for them. To
the extent that people can’t get ahold of what would work best for
them (whether it’s the long-acting animal stuff that Mickey uses or the
new extra-short-acting stuff), we have a problem.
>> Would Mickey recommend that oxygen be rationed in such a way as to be
>> delivered only at the average rate required, so that one gets exactly
>> as much oxygen while sleeping as one does while running? If not, then
>> why does Mickey insist that insulin SHOULD be delivered in that way?
>Lydik didn’t read all my posting with comprehension, did he? I can’t
>help it if he can’t read or won’t read, can I?
His analogy was fairly good actually. Oxygen, like insulin, is something
that the body needs all the time, but at different levels at different
times. It would clearly be a bad idea to somehow level out the amount of
oxygen getting to someone’s bloodstream so that it did not correspond to
demand. Why is making insulin levels correspond to demand a bad thing?
Rachel
—
"That leaves: shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker mother-fucker and tits (you
have to say it with *rhythm*). We could all just add these to our .sigs."
– Marco Simons on net censorship
On 28 Jan 1996, Rachel Meredith Kadel wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Ok, Mickey, I’m not Carl, so maybe you can give my answer to this a pass
> through the critical thinking areas of your brain before throwing it out?
> In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.960127225510.22852A-100…@crash.cts.com>,
> Michel Martin Devine <m…@cts.com> wrote:
> >On 28 Jan 1996, Speaker-to-Minerals wrote:
> >> =In a previous article, m…@cts.com (Michel Martin Devine) says:
> >> =
> >> =>An acquaintance of mine who has now finished his doctorate in pharmacology
> >> =>has told me that he can’t fathom why the world of insulin has moved back
> >> =>to the shorter acting, peaky forms. After all, he tells me, in every
> >> =>other medication on this planet whose continuous presence and action
> >> =>is strategic for the survival of the patient (insulin for Type I diabetics
> >> =>certainly falls into this category), the whole idea is to make it in some
> >> =>form of "time-release". This they originally did with insulin starting
> >> =>back as far as 1936.
> >> =
> The problem with this strategy, where insulin is concerned, is that the
> body does *not* need a constant level of insulin — it needs more when
> there’s more sugar in the bloodstream, less when there’s less. That’s
> why, when nothing’s broken, the pancreas releases insulin *in response to
> eating*.
I tried my best to make it clear that those people (like yourself) who
purposely raise their blood sugar by means of their eating habits are
NOT eligible for using peakless insulin, and thus there is no real
disagreement here.
One thing that I notice about you people who seem to think that peaky
insulin is the only way to go: Notice the last sentence in your paragraph
above. It says that when nothing’s broken, the pancreas releases insulin
*in response to eating*. Very true. And when the pancreas does this,
it secretes insulin directly into the bloodstream, in monomer form, such
that its half life is only *4* minutes. Think of the response time
that implies. Yes, when nothing is broken, the body can do a tremendous
job at regulating blood sugar. And non-diabetic humans have on average
the narrowest range of blood sugar of all the order of mammalia.
Now the error in the thinking of the users and believers in peaky
insulin is that through "intensive therapy", they can approximate
this degree of control. However, even if a person uses an insulin
pump, which only drips insulin into the body just under the *skin*,
never into the bloodstream, the time to get extra insulin into a person’s
bloodstream is on the order of *30* minutes.
So, what peaky insulin ends up doing is making the blood sugar more
peaky (because with the peaks come the valleys) which in turn requires more
insulin, which of course is peaky again. And round and round it goes. (I
was on this trip with intensive therapy with peaky insulin many months
last year. And when you are on it, you certainly take more insulin, and
far more bG readings.) People thinking that their insulin requirement
is constantly changing are actually *causing* the roller coastering of
their blood sugar and insulin needs by the very fact that they are using
peaky insulin. There are many of us Type I diabetics whose blood sugar
can never really stabilize with peaky insulin. But those who have never
experienced the comparatively calm serenity of peakless insulin (provided
that you don’t stretch your luck and eat too many calories at a time), will
never realize that their life is one of perpetual high seas.
> >Now here’s Lydik!
> >> Or, if one has sufficient intelligence to understand that one need not come
> >> up with a conspiracy theory for every event in the world, and if one
> >> abandon’s Mickey’s thorougoing stupidity, one need simply make the
> >> observation:
> >> The body’s demand for insulin is, itself, peaky.
It doesn’t have to be. A person can, with a modicum of effort, regulate his
diet and exercise within rather broad limits in such a way that his demands
for insulin can be quite constant. That, connected with a constant source
of insulin activity, results in a blood sugar that is just about as *stable*
as a non-diabetic. After several years of study and practice (no one was
there to teach me how), I finally cornered my blood sugar into the
range of 90 mg/dl to 135 mg/dl. I am not naturally that stable, and I
certainly cannot do anywhere near that well on peaky insulin. Lydik himself
reports proudly that his upper post prandial reading is typically 175
mg/dl. For me, when that happens, I consider myself out of control.
Also, please notice that I shun *low* blood sugar as much as I do the
high. This is so as not to impair my ability to recognize hypoglycemia.
This I have learned from people here on m.h.d.: that if your blood
sugar runs consistently low, it gets harder and harder to sense its low
state.
> Well, when someone doesn’t have diabetes, the peaks in insulin levels and
> blood sugar levels coincide quite nicely; it’s called a feedback loop.
> Part of what glucometers are *for* is to make it possible for someone to
> simulate this feedback loop with injected/pumped insulin. It ain’t
> perfect, but, imo, for someone with a moderately normal eating pattern, it’s
> much better than a flat insulin level.
To run a feedback loop with anything near the proficiency of a person
without diabetes would require having a *closed* feedback loop. Such a
loop would require means for automatic and continuous reading of blood
sugar reading (something technologically not possible as of yet),
together with some means of dribbling out insulin in micro-unit
quantities directly into the bloodsteam, not just under the skin (not
available yet either). To think that this can be anywhere nearly
approximated or replicated with the current state of technology (i.e.
blood glucometers, insulin syringes and/or pumps) is totally naive. It’s
just the result of the hype created by the manufacturers of these products.
Furthermore, there is a false belief held by many that a "flat" insulin
level implies a very narrow band of other parameters. But to those
who live on peakless insulin can testify to the fact that how much they
can exercise or not exercise is really a broad range. And the amount of
food they eat is in response to this variable: how much they NEED.
It’s sort of like keeping a battery charged without overcharging it.
There is one variable in the control of Type I diabetes that I never
see discussed here on m.h.d. And that is "getting ahead on your
food". There is no clinical indicator system for this variable, which
would be like the fuel level in your gas tank. The blood glucometer
is more like the air-to-fuel mixture in the venturis of the carburetor.
Important, true. But something altogether different than the level
of fuel in the tank. Running out of fuel is like getting a severe
attack of hypoglycemia; overfilling the tank and having it run out
on the ground is like high blood sugar spilling into the urine.
If and when people can recognize and pay attention to this variable, rather
than just shoot in some more insulin whenever they get high blood sugar
(which is analogous to simply stretching the fuel tank to make room for the
excess supply), they would be much farther ahead. For one thing,
they wouldn’t have anything near the same tendency to put on weight,
which is the physical result of enlarging the fuel storage system.
> And it’s certainly *better* to have both short-acting and long-acting
> forms of insulin available than to have *only* longacting forms
> available, since that allows people to use what works best for them. To
> the extent that people can’t get ahold of what would work best for
> them (whether it’s the long-acting animal stuff that Mickey uses or the
> new extra-short-acting stuff), we have a problem.
Now I will admit that I probably didn’t get my point across on this.
It has come to light in my studies of insulin, its action, and its
manufacture (not to mention my own lab research) over the past 11 months,
that while human insulin lasts a *bit* less than pork, which in turn lasts
less than beef, it turned out that the peakiness of HUMAN insulin
is due to its *elaboration*, NOT its essential characteristics.
Just recently, Eli Lilly has extended the duration of action of their
Humulin U (Ultralente) from "up to 24 hours" to presently "up to 28 hours"
(they increased the zinc concentration a little). If you don’t believe
this, buy a new vial of it yourself and read the specs on the printed
sheet that comes with it. This up-to-28-hour action now makes it possible
to use it with only one injection per day. The *single* injection aside,
this eliminates the old Ultralente overlap people used to get by taking
the stuff twice a day, which caused a very noticeable PEAK in their
insulin activity. So this is the very first time a human insulin of a
NON-PEAKY type has every been seen.
Add to this the fact that Humulin R can be readily converted to a
shorter acting, non-peaky insulin (they used to call Semilente, but
whose full generic name is "insulin zinc suspension, amorphous
precipitate) by the judicious addition of some 1.1 mg of zinc per
full vial in a pure and sterile solution.
So will you now try to comprehend where I stand on the subject of
insulin? It’s whether or not it’s PEAKY that counts, not so much
its source. True, down through history, there was ample supply
of animal insulin that was NOT peaky, while up until recently ALL
of the human insulins WERE peaky. But that was merely coincidence.
(There were plenty of animal insulins that were elaborated to be
peaky. Can anyone remember Novo’s Rapitard, which lasted only
18-22 hours, consisting of 75% beef insulin crystals without enough
zinc to get them to last their normal 30-36 hours, mixed with 25%
regular pork insulin? That was a forerunner in action to
…
read more »
In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.960128180943.17235A-100…@crash.cts.com> Michel Martin Devine <m…@cts.com> writes:
> [ ... ]
>It doesn’t have to be. A person can, with a modicum of effort, regulate his
>diet and exercise within rather broad limits in such a way that his demands
>for insulin can be quite constant. That, connected with a constant source
>of insulin activity, results in a blood sugar that is just about as *stable*
>as a non-diabetic. After several years of study and practice (no one was
>there to teach me how), I finally cornered my blood sugar into the
>range of 90 mg/dl to 135 mg/dl. I am not naturally that stable, and I
>certainly cannot do anywhere near that well on peaky insulin. Lydik himself
>reports proudly that his upper post prandial reading is typically 175
>mg/dl. For me, when that happens, I consider myself out of control.
Mickey,
I tought I should warn you that some unlucky newcomer to this group might read
one your post and think that what you write is true!
Have you ever considered what you might be responsible for if any unlucky soul
were to follow your advice?
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> [ ... ]
>***************************************************************************
>* The bottom line is this: People’s apparent fluctuating needs for *
>* insulin are largely the result of the very insulin management strategy *
>* they are following. Peaky insulin begets peaky blood sugar, and *
>* peaky blood sugar triggers the need for more of their peaky insulin. *
>* It’s a viscious circle that goes round and round. And they call it *
>* "intensive therapy". Sure, they can score a great H1Ac, but that is *
>* only how they average. Seldom do they take into account how far their *
>* blood glucose varies from highs to lows (standard deviation). In my *
>* opinion, stability of blood glucose is just as important as "averages". *
>* And I also feel that my outstanding blood sugar stability has played an *
>* instrumental role in my avoiding complications for nearly 31 years now. *
>***************************************************************************
The bottom line is THIS:
Your milage may vary! What is best for you is not neccessarily best for me!
And vice versa.
It is also statistically proved that tight control gives a lower probability
of developing complications, still some of the diabetics with excellent
control experience complications. Just as some of the diabetics with
apparently no control at all does never experience any complications!
Bjørn BL.
______________________________________________________________________
s-mail: e-mail:
| | | Bjorn B. Larsen, Ph. D. bjoe…@iet.hist.no
|__ |__ | Sor-Trondelag College
| \| \| Gunnerus gate 1
|__/|__/|_ N-7005 TRONDHEIM tel: +47 – 7389 6288
NORWAY fax: +47 – 7389 6286
______________________________________________________________________
8=FE=EFYOn Tue, 30 Jan 1996, Bjorn B. Larsen wrote:
> In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.960128180943.17235A-100…@crash.cts.com> Miche=
l Martin Devine <m…@cts.com> writes:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>=20
> > [ ... ]
>=20
> >It doesn’t have to be. A person can, with a modicum of effort, regulate=
his=20
> >diet and exercise within rather broad limits in such a way that his dema=
nds
> >for insulin can be quite constant. That, connected with a constant sour=
ce
> >of insulin activity, results in a blood sugar that is just about as *sta=
ble*
> >as a non-diabetic. After several years of study and practice (no one wa=
s
> >there to teach me how), I finally cornered my blood sugar into the
> >range of 90 mg/dl to 135 mg/dl. I am not naturally that stable, and I
> >certainly cannot do anywhere near that well on peaky insulin. Lydik him=
self=20
> >reports proudly that his upper post prandial reading is typically 175=20
> >mg/dl. For me, when that happens, I consider myself out of control.
>=20
> Mickey,
>=20
> I tought I should warn you that some unlucky newcomer to this group might
> read one your post and think that what you write is true!
I welcome all sensible and rational discussion. But your saying simply tha=
t
the above paragraph is not true is not much help, not to me or to any
newcomer. I have had Type I, insulin dependent diabetes for nearly
31 years now, and when I started out, I was pretty much on my own as
to how to cope with this condition. It was very difficult for me the
first year, until I learned how to use two peakless insulins
(pork Semilente and beef Ultralente) and adjust the two independently
to make possible the narrow limits of blood glucose that I gave in the
above paragraph. The medical profession was utterly amazed at what
I had accomplished and how I did it.
But I was not the last person to do this. Later on, the Mayo Clinic
in Rochester, Minnesota (USA) started a high tech program that taught
Type I diabetics how to do exactly the same as I did. And they have
been doing this for years. If you think that what I am *saying* is "untrue=
",
why don’t you tell them that what they are *doing* is "untrue" as well?
>=20
> Have you ever considered what you might be responsible for if any unlucky
> soul were to follow your advice?
>=20
Have you ever considered coming clean and specifying exactly what is=20
supposed to happen to a diabetic who ends up stabilizing his blood
sugar?
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > [ ... ]
>=20
> >************************************************************************=
***
> >* The bottom line is this: People’s apparent fluctuating needs for =
*
> >* insulin are largely the result of the very insulin management strategy=
*
> >* they are following. Peaky insulin begets peaky blood sugar, and =
*
> >* peaky blood sugar triggers the need for more of their peaky insulin. =
*
> >* It’s a viscious circle that goes round and round. And they call it =
*
> >* "intensive therapy". Sure, they can score a great H1Ac, but that is =
*
> >* only how they average. Seldom do they take into account how far their=
*
> >* blood glucose varies from highs to lows (standard deviation). In my =
*
> >* opinion, stability of blood glucose is just as important as "averages"=
. *
> >* And I also feel that my outstanding blood sugar stability has played a=
n *
> >* instrumental role in my avoiding complications for nearly 31 years now=
. *
> >************************************************************************=
***
> >=20
>=20
> The bottom line is THIS:
> Your milage may vary! What is best for you is not neccessarily best for m=
e!=20
> And vice versa.
If you recall my original posting, I said very clearly that not all diabeti=
cs
are qualified for this program of insulin management. There I tried to
show as politely as possible that diabetics who live to eat, rather than ea=
t
to live, have to hold a fork in one hand and their syringe loaded with peak=
y
insulin in the other. While this may seem like hyperbole, it is pretty
much what the users of Lyspro do.
>=20
> It is also statistically proved that tight control gives a lower probabil=
ity=20
> of developing complications
This is true and I believe it completely.
>, still some of the diabetics with excellent=20
> control experience complications.
There was a study cited here on m.h.d. last summer by a Canadian that=20
showed that the U and S group (the one I belong to, the diabetics who=20
run on the two peakless insulins Ultralente and Semilente) had *70%*=20
fewer complications than did those on "intensive therapy" with peaky
insulins.
As for the DCCT study, there happened to be a certain number of the
participants who were U and S people. Which goes to show that since not
everyone in the study was using peaky insulins, the result of the DDCT does=
=20
not "prove" that it is necessary to use peaky insulins to survive.
All that it showed was that narrower ranges of blood sugar at reasonable
levels definitely improved people’s chances of avoiding complications.
Before that study, there was a school of thought led by one Dr. Tolstoy
that believed that all that was required to manage diabetes was to
take only enough insulin to "stay out of trouble" (avoiding ketosis).
The opposing belief, one which I adopted, was that the closer a diabetic
could come to having their blood sugar running in the range of non-diabetic=
s,
the better. (Which is something that my colleagues and I have been
able to accomplish, much to the amazement of the users of peaky insulins.
But why do you think we have a discussion group called misc.health.
diabetes? Just so everyone with the same ideas can sit here and nod
their heads in unison? No, it’s a place where people can come and=20
share what they know, and not everyone knows everything.)=20
Yet until the DCCT, the question of what degree of control was just an=20
endless debate. But who can now remember Dr. Tolstoy?
> Just as some of the diabetics with=20
> apparently no control at all does never experience any complications!
As there are ordinary people in the world who completely neglect their
own health, and end up living as long as anyone else. So what does
that prove? Only that Lady Luck smiled on them.
Michel Martin Devine
In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.960128180943.17235A-100…@crash.cts.com>
m…@cts.com "Michel Martin Devine" writes:
> On 28 Jan 1996, Rachel Meredith Kadel wrote:
> …
> > The problem with this strategy, where insulin is concerned, is that the
> > body does *not* need a constant level of insulin — it needs more when
> > there’s more sugar in the bloodstream, less when there’s less. That’s
> > why, when nothing’s broken, the pancreas releases insulin *in response to
> > eating*.
> I tried my best to make it clear that those people (like yourself) who
> purposely raise their blood sugar by means of their eating habits are
> NOT eligible for using peakless insulin, and thus there is no real
> disagreement here.
What foods do not cause peaking? I find that all carbohydrates,
cause my blood glucose to rise. The carbohydrates in oats, sugar,
wheat, rice, milk, fruits and so on all cause my bg to rise.
Do these (or similar) foods not have this effect on you? Or do
you exclude them from your diet? Or is the timing of consumption
that removes the peaks? Or something else?
–
Patricia Reynolds
p…@caerlas.demon.co.uk
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, Patricia Reynolds wrote:
> In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.960128180943.17235A-100…@crash.cts.com>
> m…@cts.com "Michel Martin Devine" writes:
> > On 28 Jan 1996, Rachel Meredith Kadel wrote:
> > …
> > > The problem with this strategy, where insulin is concerned, is that the
> > > body does *not* need a constant level of insulin — it needs more when
> > > there’s more sugar in the bloodstream, less when there’s less. That’s
> > > why, when nothing’s broken, the pancreas releases insulin *in response to
> > > eating*.
> > I tried my best to make it clear that those people (like yourself) who
> > purposely raise their blood sugar by means of their eating habits are
> > NOT eligible for using peakless insulin, and thus there is no real
> > disagreement here.
> What foods do not cause peaking? I find that all carbohydrates,
> cause my blood glucose to rise. The carbohydrates in oats, sugar,
> wheat, rice, milk, fruits and so on all cause my bg to rise.
This is true. However, when you are taking peakless insulins, you
need the slower acting carbohydrates. Carbohydrates vary along
a continuum in their speed of being enzymatically reduced to glucose.
I hope I didn’t give the impression that sugars were to be avoided
completely. It just that they have to be limited in their quantity.
For example, I drink a quart and a half of non-fat milk every day,
and I take enough of the daytime-only insulin (Semilente) to make
its sugars go through my bloodstream and into my body cells properly
in order to get nourishment from the milk. However, I do not
indulge myself in things like ice cream, as this is beyond the
reach of my insulin to handle. I am not interested in adding a
peak to my insulin with an additional injection, inasmuch as the
arrival of the peak and my need for it would not coincide closely
enough to keep my blood sugar from peaking. In cases like this,
minutes and even fractions of minutes count. I’ll leave the
ice cream for the non-diabetics to enjoy.
The bread I eat is for the most part free of sugar. That is not
to say that I cannot eat breads that have a moderate amount of
honey in them, especially when I’m hungry. The worst form of
bread is the kind that Americans eat the most of: their
so-called white bread. Somehow, it is very fast acting even for
a starch. My Type II diabetic friends have even remarked on this.
The pastas are slow acting and good for a diabetic, provided
two things: You can stop eating the stuff in time AND you
can get a sauce for it that is not over sugared. The other
day I was in the market looking at a display of a brand of
spaghetti sauce that was tauting itself as "healthy". Here
in the USA, the government has forced food makers to give a
very concise dietetic summary of what’s in the food. This
sauce had 0 fat, true. But the amount of sugar per serving
was 16 grams! A bit high for a diabetic to handle, except those
who think they can get away with it with their peaky insulin.
So when I eat pasta, I make my own sauce. Why? For one
thing, to a Latin’s taste excessive sugar simply covers up all the
other good flavors of the seasoning. In the Mediterranean
world, sugary stuff is normally eaten for dessert. The main course
foods are conspicuously low on sugars. However, whenever I’m out and have
to eat with Americans, their food really has the sugar poured on as
what must be for them a seasoning. Which is why I avoid eating
with them like the plague.
Another aspect to the diet is one’s fat intake. It is well known
that a certain amount of fat in the diet is a great aid in slowing
down the digestion process, which itself helps avoid the peaking
of blood sugar. Americans here typically eat 40% of their daily
caloric intake as fats, with dieticians trying to get them down
to only 30%. As for myself, the fat content of my diet is from 10 to 15%
I would not recommend a 30-40% person making a sudden shift to my level,
inasmuch as their body is probably already dependent on their
present high fat intake. I grew up on my level, even before I
got diabetes (Type I) when I was 17.
As for the proteins, I use animal protein for body building and
repair, since I do a lot of heavy exercise, though not for its
own sake but as a necessity in my avocation. Those proteins are
not part of the calories a person burns and should not be counted
as such, even though protein is often measured that way (it should be
counted by the gram). If more protein is eaten than is needed for body
building and repair, it does get metabolised for energy. (For this
reason, for a person to say that they eat X calories per day is
somewhat inaccurate, even if they weigh out everything to the gram.
This is because they cannot tell very closely how much of the
protein they eat is catabolised for energy rather than used for
body repair.)
The problem is if you use much protein for energy, it takes
nearly 4 hours for it to get thoroughly catabolised to raise
the blood sugar. And if a gross error is made in eating an
excessive amount of protein, four hours later the blood sugar can really
soar. The answer? Eat this stuff carefully, and know how many grams of
it you are injesting. I never take in more than what they call 4 meat
exchanges at a time, roughly equivalent to a 1/4 pound piece of uncooked
meat. When they offer those 1/2 lb. "steer burgers", I simply
pass.
Still another aspect of keeping your food from peaking your blood
sugar is how many times a day you eat. If a Type I diabetic, especially
a young and active one, were to try to take in all their food in
a day with only one or two meals, they would be in trouble.
When I started out with my diabetes at 17, I would eat 3 lighter
meals a day plus 3 scheduled snacks, including one before bedtime.
Other snacks were taken as needed. At age 48, I no longer need
as much food, although I am more physically active than I was at that time.
However, the 3 and 3 pattern is still viable.
Michel Martin Devine
[Patricia Reynolds lives in the UK, and so I took a more international
perspective in writing my reply.]
In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.960127225510.22852A-100…@crash.cts.com>, Michel Martin Devine <m…@cts.com> writes:
=> Or, if one has sufficient intelligence to understand that one need not come up
=> with a conspiracy theory for every event in the world, and if one abandon’s
=> Mickey’s thorougoing stupidity, one need simply make the observation:
=> The body’s demand for insulin is, itself, peaky.
=
=How can two peaky patterns ever coincide:
Easy, Mickey, if one of those patterns has a single peak: You simply time the
beginning of that pattern so that its peak coincides with one of the peaks of
the other pattern. Much more interesting, though, is the question:
How can a peakless pattern coincide with a peaky pattern?
—————————————————————————
I try very hard to say exactly what I mean. I’d appreciate it if you’d
bear that in mind and not try to "interpret" my posts to fit your own
preconceived notions if I’m posting in a serious thread. Remember: If you
throw a strawman into a heated debate, flames are likely to be the result.
In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.960128180943.17235A-100…@crash.cts.com>, Michel Martin Devine <m…@cts.com> writes:
=I tried my best to make it clear that those people (like yourself) who
=purposely raise their blood sugar by means of their eating habits are
=NOT eligible for using peakless insulin, and thus there is no real
=disagreement here.
Let’s see. In Mickey-speak, "purposely raise their blood sugar by means of
their eating habits" means "aren’t willing to compulsively nibble food 16 hours
a day in order to avoid actually eating a meal."
—————————————————————————
I try very hard to say exactly what I mean. I’d appreciate it if you’d
bear that in mind and not try to "interpret" my posts to fit your own
preconceived notions if I’m posting in a serious thread. Remember: If you
throw a strawman into a heated debate, flames are likely to be the result.
In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.960128180943.17235A-100…@crash.cts.com>, Michel Martin Devine <m…@cts.com> writes:
=One thing that I notice about you people who seem to think that peaky
=insulin is the only way to go: Notice the last sentence in your paragraph
=above. It says that when nothing’s broken, the pancreas releases insulin
=*in response to eating*. Very true. And when the pancreas does this,
=it secretes insulin directly into the bloodstream, in monomer form, such
=that its half life is only *4* minutes. Think of the response time
=that implies. Yes, when nothing is broken, the body can do a tremendous
=job at regulating blood sugar. And non-diabetic humans have on average
=the narrowest range of blood sugar of all the order of mammalia.
=
=Now the error in the thinking of the users and believers in peaky
=insulin is that through "intensive therapy", they can approximate
=this degree of control. However, even if a person uses an insulin
=pump, which only drips insulin into the body just under the *skin*,
=never into the bloodstream, the time to get extra insulin into a person’s
=bloodstream is on the order of *30* minutes.
So what? Mickey, not everybody’s as stupid as you are: Some folks can
actually take the delay into account, and inject insulin a while before eating.
=So, what peaky insulin ends up doing is making the blood sugar more
=peaky
Oh?
=(because with the peaks come the valleys) which in turn requires more
=insulin, which of course is peaky again.
Please, Mickey, tell us just what pathetic excuse for logic you used to come up
with the above claim. It ought to be hilarious.
=And round and round it goes. (I was on this trip with intensive therapy with
=peaky insulin many months last year.
So since you’re incapable of understanding how to use intensive therapy,
everybody else must be incapable of it, eh? This despite the fact that quite a
few folks have reported excellent results with intensive therapy.
=> And it’s certainly *better* to have both short-acting and long-acting
=> forms of insulin available than to have *only* longacting forms
=> available, since that allows people to use what works best for them. To
=> the extent that people can’t get ahold of what would work best for
=> them (whether it’s the long-acting animal stuff that Mickey uses or the
=> new extra-short-acting stuff), we have a problem.
=
=
=Now I will admit that I probably didn’t get my point across on this.
=It has come to light in my studies of insulin, its action, and its
=manufacture (not to mention my own lab research) over the past 11 months,
Please note that these "studies" were made by a soi-disant "chemist" who
doesn’t even understand how one can successively dilute a solution. Mickey’s
just blowing smoke here, folks.
—————————————————————————
I try very hard to say exactly what I mean. I’d appreciate it if you’d
bear that in mind and not try to "interpret" my posts to fit your own
preconceived notions if I’m posting in a serious thread. Remember: If you
throw a strawman into a heated debate, flames are likely to be the result.
In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.960123113646.24832A-100…@crash.cts.com>, Michel Martin Devine <m…@cts.com> writes:
=I too started out my Type I, insulin dependent diabetes with the classic
="sudden weight loss". However, there are other ways that weight can be lost
=besides the real burning of fat. It is practically impossible to burn fat
=fast enough to account for a sudden weight loss, since burning fat
=requires the expenditure of about 3000 calories for every single pound of
=the stuff that is shed.
=Well, yes, under the condition of the onset of
=Type I diabetes, a certain amount of fat IS burned, as evidenced by
=ketones in the urine. But most of the weight loss under these
=circumstances is due to loss of fluids (water), and a newcomer to Type I
=diabetes can really get dehydrated.
30-40 pounds dehydrated? Mickey, you’re pathetic.
=As I recall, my weight returned to near normal within 6 weeks. I had
=lost about 15 lbs.
Here Mickey is claiming that he suffered from substantial dehydration for
nearly 6 weeks. After all, that 15-pound weight loss had, according to Mickey,
to be mostly dehydration. Rather a remarkable claim, don’t you think? Or
maybe Mickey *IS* stupid enough that he didn’t think to rehydrate himself for
that long.
=2) Using multiple daily injections of insulin every day of varying doses
=can contribute to weight gain. This is because every time a person raises
=their insulin level to make a surplus of blood glucose disappear, the body
=has the option of storing the extra calories (which it couldn’t use) as fat.
Of coruse, if you’re not as stupid as Mickey, you’ll be using an insulin
regimen that won’t require you to continue eating continuously all day long, so
a few hours after you’ve eaten, your body will then begin converting glycogen
to glucose. Next time you eat, the excess glucose will be converted to
glycogen. And you get a stable pattern without weight gain.
=True, most everyone thinks (a) the insulin just anihilates the glucose (it
=doesn’t and it can’t),
No, Mickey, I’ve never met ANYBODY who believed that. This is a strawman of
your own devising. Funny how the only arguments for intensive therapy Mickey
can successfully argue against are those he comes up with himself, isn’t it?
=OR (b) the insulin simply stores the glucose in the
=liver. (Which it does, but there is a limit to what the liver can hold,
=and when that limit is reached, then the fat storage mechanism has to be
=triggered.
Don’t forget that glycogen is also stored in the muscles. But that aside, only
an idiot (e.g., Mickey) would be unaware of the above when starting intensive
therapy. Most folks have enough intelligence to be able to, once they
understand the mechanism, adjust their insulin regimes to account for it.
Alas, since Mickey’s too stupid to manage that, he concludes that everybody’s
incapable of managing it.
—————————————————————————
I try very hard to say exactly what I mean. I’d appreciate it if you’d
bear that in mind and not try to "interpret" my posts to fit your own
preconceived notions if I’m posting in a serious thread. Remember: If you
throw a strawman into a heated debate, flames are likely to be the result.
On 1 Feb 1996, Speaker-to-Minerals wrote:
> In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.960128180943.17235A-100…@crash.cts.com>, Michel Martin Devine <m…@cts.com> writes:
> =I tried my best to make it clear that those people (like yourself) who
> =purposely raise their blood sugar by means of their eating habits are
> =NOT eligible for using peakless insulin, and thus there is no real
> =disagreement here.
> Let’s see. In Mickey-speak, "purposely raise their blood sugar by means of
> their eating habits" means "aren’t willing to compulsively nibble food 16 hours
> a day in order to avoid actually eating a meal."
I used the word "purposely" so as to avoid giving people the impression that
they were doing so out of lack of self-control.
I eat three good-sized meals a day. I space in three snacks. How does
that possibly mean "compulsively nibble food 16 hours a day in order to
avoid actually eating a meal?" I stated the facts in the first two sentences
all through my original postings, and Lydik knows this perfectly well.
Ladies and gentlemen: Again we have a prefect example of what I mean by
Lydik deliberatly distorting and misrepresenting what other people say.
He does this to mislead you as to what the original person had to say.
Surely, this person’s only following are people dumber than himself to
fall for such tactics.
Maybe I should start doing the same to him…
On 1 Feb 1996, Speaker-to-Minerals wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.960128180943.17235A-100…@crash.cts.com>, Michel Martin Devine <m…@cts.com> writes:
> =One thing that I notice about you people who seem to think that peaky
> =insulin is the only way to go: Notice the last sentence in your paragraph
> =above. It says that when nothing’s broken, the pancreas releases insulin
> =*in response to eating*. Very true. And when the pancreas does this,
> =it secretes insulin directly into the bloodstream, in monomer form, such
> =that its half life is only *4* minutes. Think of the response time
> =that implies. Yes, when nothing is broken, the body can do a tremendous
> =job at regulating blood sugar. And non-diabetic humans have on average
> =the narrowest range of blood sugar of all the order of mammalia.
> =
> =Now the error in the thinking of the users and believers in peaky
> =insulin is that through "intensive therapy", they can approximate
> =this degree of control. However, even if a person uses an insulin
> =pump, which only drips insulin into the body just under the *skin*,
> =never into the bloodstream, the time to get extra insulin into a person’s
> =bloodstream is on the order of *30* minutes.
> So what? Mickey, not everybody’s as stupid as you are: Some folks can
> actually take the delay into account, and inject insulin a while before eating.
My position is that no human could possibly be prescient enough to
be able to predict the *exact* timing and impact of what they eat
will have on their blood sugar BEFORE they eat. If you think YOU can,
you are deluded. You try to do this, and you miss the mark far
more often than not. From whence the need for your "intensive therapy"
in order to rectify your original errors of judgment.
> =So, what peaky insulin ends up doing is making the blood sugar more
> =peaky
> Oh?
> =(because with the peaks come the valleys) which in turn requires more
> =insulin, which of course is peaky again.
> Please, Mickey, tell us just what pathetic excuse for logic you used to come up
> with the above claim. It ought to be hilarious.
Just look a graph that has peaks. A graph with peaks ALWAYS has places
with lower values, which can colloquially be called valleys. If you find
that hilarious, then you are a very easy person to make laugh.
> =And round and round it goes. (I was on this trip with intensive therapy with
> =peaky insulin many months last year.
> So since you’re incapable of understanding how to use intensive therapy,
> everybody else must be incapable of it, eh? This despite the fact that quite a
> few folks have reported excellent results with intensive therapy.
"Excellent results"? Well, if you compare their efforts (and yours) with
the outcome of no therapy at all, then you guys look good. However,
since none of you insulin junkies have ever lived on peakless insulin,
you are NOT in a position to comment on it. Just one more example of
people talking through their hats.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> => And it’s certainly *better* to have both short-acting and long-acting
> => forms of insulin available than to have *only* longacting forms
> => available, since that allows people to use what works best for them. To
> => the extent that people can’t get ahold of what would work best for
> => them (whether it’s the long-acting animal stuff that Mickey uses or the
> => new extra-short-acting stuff), we have a problem.
> =
> =
> =Now I will admit that I probably didn’t get my point across on this.
> =It has come to light in my studies of insulin, its action, and its
> =manufacture (not to mention my own lab research) over the past 11 months,
> Please note that these "studies" were made by a soi-disant "chemist" who
> doesn’t even understand how one can successively dilute a solution. Mickey’s
> just blowing smoke here, folks.
There you go again, Lydik! Obfuscating, as usual. You know that
"successively diluting a solution" was never at issue. As for you, Lydik,
you wouldn’t know one chemical component inside your vial of insulin from
another.
You’re just a big fake. A know-it-all who cannot control himself from
running off at the mouth on ANY subject. It really gives you a lift,
doesn’t it? Yeah, I know. Being just a computer jock who goes around
re-booting people’s computers when they crash isn’t much of a life, is
it? So you come here as the soi-disant expert on everything, and because
you work for a bunch of incompenents (the Hubble telescope WAS a fiasco,
and you know it) you think you know more than anyone else in the world.
No sale, Lydik!
Michel Martin Devine wrote:
> The analogy falls apart when you consider one *big* difference between
> oxygen and insulin. Oxygen is consumed stoichiometrically, that is,
> in direct proportion to the amount of calories of energy burned with
> the oxygen. Insulin, on the other hand, is analogous to an enzyme that
> is used over and over again, and whose presence is needed in order to
> transport glucose past the cell membranes of the body. It lasts for
> a certain amount of time regardless of how many trips across the cell
> membranes it takes.
Not true.
After binding to the insulin receptor on the cell membranes and eliciting
an increase in the rate of glucose transport, the insulin gets
internalized into the cell and degraded. Only a few percent actually get
recycled as intact insulin.
The reason why the duration of action is fairly constant is because the
rate-limiting step is absorption from the injection site rather than the
rate of consumption.
Lauge Schaffer
In article <4eqmpm$…@gap.cco.caltech.edu> lyd…@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Speaker-to-Minerals) writes:
>(replying to article
> <Pine.SCO.3.91.960123113646.24832A-100…@crash.cts.com>,
> Michel Martin Devine:
>30-40 pounds dehydrated? Mickey, you’re pathetic.
>=As I recall, my weight returned to near normal within 6 weeks. I had
>=lost about 15 lbs.
>Here Mickey is claiming that he suffered from substantial dehydration for
>nearly 6 weeks. After all, that 15-pound weight loss had, according to Mickey,
>to be mostly dehydration. Rather a remarkable claim, don’t you think? Or
>maybe Mickey *IS* stupid enough that he didn’t think to rehydrate himself for
>that long.
Why is that stupid?
I am not a medical doctor, nor am I working in a medical environment, but
maybe you can tell me why this is so ridiculous?
When I got my diabetes I lost 15 kg (30 lbs) in 2 weeks. I drank like a camel,
but every drop of it, plus some more, ended up in the toilet! At the hospital
they told me that most of my wieght loss was just water.
Bjørn BL
______________________________________________________________________
s-mail: e-mail:
| | | Bjorn B. Larsen, Ph. D. bjoe…@iet.hist.no
|__ |__ | Sor-Trondelag College
| \| \| Gunnerus gate 1
|__/|__/|_ N-7005 TRONDHEIM tel: +47 – 7389 6288
NORWAY fax: +47 – 7389 6286
______________________________________________________________________
On 1 Feb 1996, Speaker-to-Minerals wrote:
> In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.960123113646.24832A-100…@crash.cts.com>, Michel Martin Devine <m…@cts.com> writes:
> =I too started out my Type I, insulin dependent diabetes with the classic
> ="sudden weight loss". However, there are other ways that weight can be lost
> =besides the real burning of fat. It is practically impossible to burn fat
> =fast enough to account for a sudden weight loss, since burning fat
> =requires the expenditure of about 3000 calories for every single pound of
> =the stuff that is shed.
> =Well, yes, under the condition of the onset of
> =Type I diabetes, a certain amount of fat IS burned, as evidenced by
> =ketones in the urine. But most of the weight loss under these
> =circumstances is due to loss of fluids (water), and a newcomer to Type I
> =diabetes can really get dehydrated.
> 30-40 pounds dehydrated? Mickey, you’re pathetic.
Do you think, Lydik, that at the rate of 3000 calories per pound that
a person’s weight can go up and down 30-40 pounds solely by fat burning
in such a limited time? Get out your calculator. That would require
burning fat far in excess of 10000 calories per day! You must believe
in those magic diets that they tell about in the tabloids at the supermarket
checkouts.
> =As I recall, my weight returned to near normal within 6 weeks. I had
> =lost about 15 lbs.
> Here Mickey is claiming that he suffered from substantial dehydration for
> nearly 6 weeks.
Lydik logic: Just because it took me 6 weeks to regain my weight loss, that
I suffered from the weight loss for the same length of time.
How does he come to such erroneous conclusions? FACT: It took me
from near the end of March 1965 all the way to July 1965 to lose the
15 pounds. How long is that? 3-1/2 months. If anyone thinks that
Lydik is "smart", then they are as stupid as he is.
> After all, that 15-pound weight loss had, according to Mickey,
> to be mostly dehydration. Rather a remarkable claim, don’t you think? Or
> maybe Mickey *IS* stupid enough that he didn’t think to rehydrate himself for
> that long.
Here is another reason why I DONT BELIEVE that Lydik himself is diabetic.
When I was an uncontrolled Type I diabetic, I was urinating copiously
(polyuria). Under such circumstances, there was no chance of my
rehydrating myself.
When Lydik goes around calling people STUPID, *he* is the one who comes
out looking really stupid. And his stupidity is largely derived from
the fact that most of the time, he is talking through his hat.
Like the time he tried to discredit my knowledge of chemistry. He really
tried hard. But to no avail. He was really in over his head that time,
and he knows it. Yet everytime he makes a horse’s ass of himself, he
retreats hoping that no one will notice. Then whenever someone reminds
him of his asininity at a later date, he merely screams "liar". Oh well.
> =2) Using multiple daily injections of insulin every day of varying doses
> =can contribute to weight gain. This is because every time a person raises
> =their insulin level to make a surplus of blood glucose disappear, the body
> =has the option of storing the extra calories (which it couldn’t use) as fat.
> Of coruse, if you’re not as stupid as Mickey, you’ll be using an insulin
> regimen that won’t require you to continue eating continuously all day long,
> so a few hours after you’ve eaten, your body will then begin converting
> glycogen to glucose. Next time you eat, the excess glucose will be converted to
> glycogen. And you get a stable pattern without weight gain.
1) Just like Lydik again, who deliberately distorts and misrepresents what
the other person says. I never implied that I eat continuously all day long.
All I said was that I distribute my food more evenly throughout the day.
There’s a big difference.
2) Here again, Lydik, who himself is physically nothing more than
a weasened rat who can’t put on a pound if his life depended on it, cannot
appreciate how easy it is for many if not most people to put on weight.
Most people find that excess glucagon in the liver can easily end up in
their adipose. Another example of Lydik, the coldest and most
non-understanding person on the Internet.
> =True, most everyone thinks (a) the insulin just anihilates the glucose (it
> =doesn’t and it can’t),
> No, Mickey, I’ve never met ANYBODY who believed that. This is a strawman of
> your own devising. Funny how the only arguments for intensive therapy Mickey
> can successfully argue against are those he comes up with himself, isn’t it?
Not a strawman. I am just relating what I have read here on m.h.d. from
some people. Where were YOU to straighten them out? Writing nasty-grams
to nice women so that they wouldn’t feel so nice, I’ll bet.
> =OR (b) the insulin simply stores the glucose in the
> =liver. (Which it does, but there is a limit to what the liver can hold,
> =and when that limit is reached, then the fat storage mechanism has to be
> =triggered.
> Don’t forget that glycogen is also stored in the muscles. But that aside, only
> an idiot (e.g., Mickey) would be unaware of the above when starting intensive
> therapy. Most folks have enough intelligence to be able to, once they
> understand the mechanism, adjust their insulin regimes to account for it.
> Alas, since Mickey’s too stupid to manage that, he concludes that everybody’s
> incapable of managing it.
This last remark is both irrelevant AND totally off the wall. What else
could one expect from a mental patient?
The glygogen stored in the muscles is 1) limited in amount and no way
compares to the storage capacity of glycogen in the liver, and 2) once
glycogen is actually stored in the muscle cells, it is readily available for
use without the need for insulin or glucacon. Hence, it need not even
be mentioned in this discussion. It is not part of the problem of regulating
blood sugar, aside from being a factor in the overall storage of fuel
contributing to the condition of a person "getting ahead on their food".
But Lydik himself (last year) scoffed, sneered at, and ridiculed this
concept.
Oh, and this again (below). Why don’t you edit and revise this drivel?
It could very well read:
I am the sole, self-appointed judge of everything posted here at
misc.health.diabetes. If you dare contribute anything that I didn’t know
already, flames are likely to be the result.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> —————————————————————————
> I try very hard to say exactly what I mean. I’d appreciate it if you’d
> bear that in mind and not try to "interpret" my posts to fit your own
> preconceived notions if I’m posting in a serious thread. Remember: If you
> throw a strawman into a heated debate, flames are likely to be the result.