Type 2 diabetes is there any cures?

Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
(1 vote)
Results 51 to 75 of 255

  1. Post
    #51
    Calorie restriction with particular emphasis on having a very low simple carbohydrate (sugar) intake does a good job of resolving type II diabetes if it is a recent diagnosis. Unfortunately it is very difficult to stick to the diet unless you have gastric bypass surgery (which reduces the amount you can eat and also makes it very uncomfortable to eat anything high in sugar).

  2. Post
    #52
    smokingman wrote:
    Calorie restriction with particular emphasis on having a very low simple carbohydrate (sugar) intake does a good job of resolving type II diabetes if it is a recent diagnosis. Unfortunately it is very difficult to stick to the diet unless you have gastric bypass surgery (which reduces the amount you can eat and also makes it very uncomfortable to eat anything high in sugar).
    what lol? Eating high protein/fat diets isnt hard LOL

  3. Post
    #53
    LiQuid.Ace wrote:
    what lol? Eating high protein/fat diets isnt hard LOL
    Yeah that's true for most people, but when your talking about type 2 diabetics they are almost always overweight partly due to years of poor diet in the first place. Many of them end up cheating when put on the calorie restricted diet and they are the people I'm referring too. Also it's not just them cutting out the sugar, these diets are very calorie restricted to also induce weight loss.

  4. Post
    #54
    You're grossly overweight. Lose that weight and I bet there's a good shot you will lose that type 2 diabetes. It's the abdominal fat that will screw you over. It's the fat around the organs that causes diabetes, blood pressure issues, liver issues etc.

    I can speak from experience. I would get blood tests at the doc for random stuff and every time the results were clear except that my liver enzymes were slightly elevated. None of the docs ever gave a shit but it bugged me because in my experience docs generally only give a shit if you're dying on them and few will treat you before you get ill. To cut a boring story short, the doc would just shrug and say you have a fatty liver mostly likely. That's because even though i look in good shape from the outside, there's a blobby wall of fat in my guts. So the point is shed that weight but make sure you get all of it, even the hidden stuff. That shit will come off last so don't ease back. Get a nice flat stomach.

  5. Post
    #55
    smokingman wrote:
    Yeah that's true for most people, but when your talking about type 2 diabetics they are almost always overweight partly due to years of poor diet in the first place. Many of them end up cheating when put on the calorie restricted diet and they are the people I'm referring too. Also it's not just them cutting out the sugar, these diets are very calorie restricted to also induce weight loss.
    Eating 250-500 less calories a day isnt hard. Pretty are just lazy and don't care enough to try.

  6. Post
    #56
    Yeah high glucose will damage a lot of small capillaries thats why you will get damage to the eye, kidney as a result. Sugar as a crystal is not good for the body if it doesn't get absorbed, its destructive to a lot of sensitive capillaries. Other impairments also come but I forget off the top of my head.

    As said before though diet is the number one factor in whether or not you will get better or worse. You can be drastic and change hard but I think adherence to diet is probably the biggest factor in whether you will succeed or fail. If its too extreme you're probably not going to keep at it for too long, but it depends on the kind of person you are, if you're determined to actually get better then you will succeed but if you're not wanting to change then eh, not much you can do then.

    Best thing to do imo is seek a dietitian and get some proper help. Internet is filled with conflicting advice even this thread is full of lols. It may help to get into a sport or something to occupy yourself and stay fit. my 2c

  7. Post
    #57
    LiQuid.Ace wrote:
    Eating 250-500 less calories a day isnt hard. Pretty are just lazy and don't care enough to try.
    This is a solid example of not actually understanding the problem. While physically it's not hard to eat less, mentally it's obviously a lot harder. If it wasn't then obesity wouldn't be such an enormous problem. (admittedly there are other compounding factors such as food culture and socioeconomic statuses)

  8. Post
    #58
    It's just Nature's way of weeding out the fat and the weak.

    Imagine if there were no penalty for being obese?

    All the fatsos would loll about eating crisps and I'd have to do all the work.

  9. Post
    #59
    What we really need, is a convenient way of weeding out the old and infirm. Why should i pay for all the baby-boomers who celebrated the end of the war by banging like randy rabbits.

    Interesting doco on telly the other day about how two identical twins went on diets, one on a high-fat-no-sugar diet, the other on a high-sugar-no-fat diet. They figured out that the worst combo in food is 50/50 mix of fat and sugar; apparently it turns off the body's way of self-regulating.

    Basically a balanced diet, avoid processed foods as much as possible (especially those with 50/50 mixes of fat & sugar), and regular exercise.

  10. Post
    #60
    Easier said then done though. Sugar is as addictive as ****. I feel like shit if i cut back my sugar intake too much. Slow and steady.

  11. Post
    #61
    LiQuid.Ace wrote:
    Eating 250-500 less calories a day isnt hard. Pretty are just lazy and don't care enough to try.
    The diets that are most effective at reducing type 2 symptoms are a bit more than that. They are called very low calorie diets: 3300 kilojoules per day (800 cal/day). Also as Clavulante said there is a fairly large mental component to the disease. It's not so much "you are what you eat" as it is "you are what you crave to eat" and for some people their body setting are out of whack.. There are genetic predispositions to it as well (including gene imprinting that occurs during gestation).

  12. Post
    #62
    Eat right> stapled stomach>a victim of mountain dew and doritos complaining about the nuances of type 2 on its breeding ground, a gaming forum

  13. Post
    #63
    Zarkov wrote:
    It's just Nature's way of weeding out the fat and the weak.

    Imagine if there were no penalty for being obese?

    All the fatsos would loll about eating crisps and I'd have to do all the work.
    I see what you did there. We should encourage obese people to lose weight, less they become a massive draw on this unfair public health system

  14. Post
    #64
    smokingman wrote:
    The diets that are most effective at reducing type 2 symptoms are a bit more than that. They are called very low calorie diets: 3300 kilojoules per day (800 cal/day). Also as Clavulante said there is a fairly large mental component to the disease. It's not so much "you are what you eat" as it is "you are what you crave to eat" and for some people their body setting are out of whack.. There are genetic predispositions to it as well (including gene imprinting that occurs during gestation).
    I get cravings all the time for chocolate and random shit. I just ignore them. The joys of having to stay within a certain weight class for sports and career? If you REALLY want to achieve or do something then you will do anything you need to do to achieve it.

  15. Post
    #65
    SirGrim wrote:
    I see what you did there. We should encourage obese people to lose weight, less they become a massive draw on this unfair public health system
    Actually fat people are great for the economy. They tap out on average at 65, often from sudden heart failure. Healthy people are far more expensive over time, you have to pay them super and their health costs skyrocket as they age.

    What we don't want are new ways for obese people to live longer.

  16. Post
    #66
    bradc wrote:
    Actually fat people are great for the economy. They tap out on average at 65, often from sudden heart failure. Healthy people are far more expensive over time, you have to pay them super and their health costs skyrocket as they age.
    I'd be interested in seeing statistics to back this theory up. I think a lifetime of medical bills fat people stack up would outweigh the healthy living longer...

  17. Post
    #67
    Bobs wrote:
    Easier said then done though. Sugar is as addictive as ****. I feel like shit if i cut back my sugar intake too much. Slow and steady.
    That' feeling like shit' takes a couple of days only. Sugar is more addictive than cocaine and most illicit drugs.

  18. Post
    #68
    bradc wrote:
    Actually fat people are great for the economy. They tap out on average at 65, often from sudden heart failure. Healthy people are far more expensive over time, you have to pay them super and their health costs skyrocket as they age.

    What we don't want are new ways for obese people to live longer.
    My mother lived till she was 93, had one emergency appendix operation, and paid all her Super back in tax.

    I'm getting a knee operation that's funded entirely by me and Unimed.

    Heaps of people around like us.

    Not sure why I can't get some tax relief on the insurance though.

  19. Post
    #69
    Zarkov wrote:
    My mother lived till she was 93, had one emergency appendix operation, and paid all her Super back in tax..
    Pretty sure all her taxes earned while working just went on paying for the costs of the day. Unless she grew up in some other society that adequately provisioned for their retirement (which there aren't many of).

  20. Post
    #70
    Privoxy wrote:
    I'd be interested in seeing statistics to back this theory up. I think a lifetime of medical bills fat people stack up would outweigh the healthy living longer...
    Researchers from The University of Auckland have announced the results of a recent study showing that overweight and obesity in New Zealand costs the country between NZ$722 million and NZ$849 million a year in health care costs and lost productivity.
    https://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/en/f...e-cost-of.html

    Whereas old people currently cost the state about $12b a year in direct costs.

    Smokers are even better financially because of the level of contribution they make in their taxes.

  21. Post
    #71
    bradc wrote:
    Pretty sure all her taxes earned while working just went on paying for the costs of the day. Unless she grew up in some other society that adequately provisioned for their retirement (which there aren't many of).
    She never had a job in her life, but her income was high enough that her Super payments were clawed back.

  22. Post
    #72
    Zarkov wrote:
    She never had a job in her life, but her income was high enough that her Super payments were clawed back.
    Sorry?

  23. Post
    #73
    Zarkov wrote:
    She never had a job in her life, but her income was high enough that her Super payments were clawed back.
    If she's a New Zealander then the government of the day didn't put aside any extra money from her taxes to pay for her retirement. That she might have paid more tax than the average other person is an anecdotal irrelevance.

  24. Post
    #74
    Privoxy wrote:
    Sorry?
    Her husband might have earned a lot, or she inherited money, or some sort of other externality that had her earning a generous level of income while not having to work a standard job. Or something else that assumes a level of personal clairvoyancy when establishing real world trends or realities.

    Fact is we get down on the fatties from a moral perspective and then use arguments like cost to the state which may or may not be relevant. In almost every area of social spend, old people be taking the lions share, which is an ignorable issue, provided your demographics don't age too much.

  25. Post
    #75
    Privoxy wrote:
    Sorry?
    Trust fund.

    Once your income in retirement reaches a certain level, NZ Superannuation is clawed back.

    Oops: was abolished in 1990.


    LOL @ Bill English, keep voting for them please younger generation.

    I've never voted National in my life, so don't blame me.




    Brian Gaynor, of Milford Asset Management, said New Zealand was an exception and most developed countries, including Australia, means-tested super payments.

    "There are people who are very wealthy, and I don't see why they should be eligible for NZ Super," he said.

    "They do pay higher tax on it than someone who has no other income, but that doesn't justify it. It doesn't seem to me to be the best use of the country's resources."

    But Grey Power president Terry King said retirees who have saved to supplement their income, even by $60,000 or more a year, should not be penalised by income-testing policies.

    "If they've worked hard through their lives, through business or whatever - superannuation is an entitlement, not a benefit."

    And while Labour has mooted raising the retirement age from 65 to 67, neither of the main parties nor the Greens were interested in giving less public money to retirement-aged people who had a little extra cash.

    A spokesman for Finance Minister Bill English said the Government would make no changes to national superannuation.

    He declined to comment on the fairness of funding superannuation for the wealthy. "It is affordable under current settings."
    Last edited by Zarkov; 4th January 2016 at 7:54 pm.