It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Can Calorie restriction cure diabetes?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:54 AM
Diabetes runs in my family on my paternal side, so this issue is important to me. I need to be sure that the information I am reading is accurate and evidence based so I always look to the peer reviewed articles.

It is very important that people realise that metabolic disorders cause many diseases including heart disease and diabetes. It is far more important than this to determine the cause of the metabolic Syndrome.

I believe that preventing the syndrome will help to prevent certain diseases for many people.


The title of this article is horrible.
edit on 9-12-2011 by Threegirls because: Apologies if this causes offense, I didn't write it.

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by Threegirls


If you believe this, then how do you explain skinny Type II diabetics?

I am so sorry to tell you this.

Please understand that these types of studies are observational studies. Observational studies cannot be used to determine CAUSATION. They are to be used only to discover avenue of potential research. Their results are notoriously unreliable.

Please read the previous link and you will have some understanding of why there are so many of these studies that "link" or "associate" obesity with diabetes.

These types of studies are used to convince the public that diabetes are lazy gluttons who are costing them so much money through health care costs that it is really necessary for the government to step in and put taxes on food to stop the public from eating too much.

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

Hi, I am not saying it is what I believe, I continue to research and always will.

I never accept an answer just because it fits with my belief, I don't have any beliefs. This helps me to find answers.
I do not reject research just because it offends me either.

I was talking about the cause of metabolic syndrome.

Stress hormones seem to have a metabolic response too obviously, this may have a connection to some cases of diabetic onset for some.

I will continue to research, as I said.
edit on 9-12-2011 by Threegirls because: never mind will add later

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:13 AM
reply to post by Threegirls


Please review the epilogue of the study you provided.

Based on evidence reviewed here, it seems that prevalent forms of metabolic syndrome and T2DM result from unremitting caloric surplus complicated by failure of adipocytes to maintain protection against lipotoxicity. If one imagines the USA population to be unwitting volunteers in the largest (300 million subjects) and longest (50 years) clinical research project in history, the specific aim of which was to determine if the deleterious effects of sustained caloric surplus in rodents also can occur in humans, the outcome of the project becomes clear after 50 years of exposure to an inexpensive calorie-dense diet high in fat and carbohydrates, 200 million subjects are overweight and >~50 million have metabolic syndrome. The failure of health care providers and pharmaceutical industries to contain the pandemic suggests that elimination of “bargain basement” calories will be required to “price obesity out of the market.” Unfortunately, this would have profound socioeconomic implications: how do we tax excessive calories while at the same time guaranteeing sufficient access to high quality foods for the underprivileged?

First I should like to point out that the evidence reviewed in the study would also indicate the very opposite of what the study concluses - that prevalent forms of metabolic syndrome and T2DM result from failure of adipocytes to maintain protect against lipotoxicity resulting in storage of calories as fat.

This is a case of what came first - the chicken or the egg? Does obesity result from metabolic syndrome or does metabolic syndrome cause obesity?

Second - I should like to point out the study authors offer no solution except to offer the government an excuse to tax food. Why were options like the government stopping the subsidy of corn not offered. High fructose corn syrup is rife throughout our food supply because government subsidies allow manufactures to take advantage of a cheap source of carbohydrates.

Why would the study authors not suggest that whole, unprocessed fruits and veggies not also be subsidized to provide a better supply of food at cheaper prices to the public?

The fact that the authors failed to even consider any other option except taxation of food leads me to believe that this whole study is, in fact, a propaganda piece that anti-obesity campaigners (who are being paid to lobby by the government) will offer to the government as "proof" that food should be taxed and that the government should intrude even deeper into our private lives.

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

I did not say that it shows that these things cause the illness, however in the interest of balance all arguments should be presented.

These are not my opinions, just other arguments I have found which are just as valid as any other.

The argument about healthcare I don't quite get. Surely if they are saying that diet and exercise is the prevention and treatment, neither of those cost the tax payer anything so why is it a burden on anyone.

They can just as easily say 'Hey they don't cost you anything because their treatment is free?'

Please don't feel I am attacking you or the OP, I was hoping my contribution would bring balance to the thread, with other research. One sided threads tend to get boring and be abandoned.

This topic is important so it needs to explore all the options, this is why we are here, is it not?


posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:45 AM
reply to post by Threegirls


Fair enough - lets have that fair and balance discussion.

Let us both admit that the perception has grown among the public that diabetics become diabetics because of poor lifestyle choices. This perception has been fostered by articles like the original poster pointed out and by discussions such as the one you have linked to.

The perception is that, as a DIRECT result of these poor lifestyle choices, the diabetic will have costs to the health care system that greatly exceed the costs of morally superior population who are not obese. You have pointed out some of these costs yourself, heart attack care, operations to amputate limbs, disability resulting in inability to work and pay taxes.

Those individuals who follow the advice of health professions (and enjoy a healthy wieght as a result) are having to pay more for health care and in taxes to support those lazy, gluttons.

When the propaganda (and I am sure you can agree that both of the links provided here are actually propaganda and not serious scientific enquiry) has caused public perception to boil over into anger, there will be support for the government "to do something".

The "something" that is always chosen to be done is always the same -
(Actually, the propaganda is the first step - before you can have a solution - you must create the problem. That was the purpose of changing the definition of both a healthy BMI and a healthy blood sugar. it was to create the "epidemic" of obesity and diabetes)

first- sue the industry for as much money as you can get (which of course the industry passes on to the consumer),

second - the government is required to pass taxes on foods it considers "unhealthy" (no you don't get a vote here - they will tell you what is unhealthy!) This increases government income.

Third - Punish the gluttons by denying them health care (this reduces costs to the government). Turn them into social pariahs

Fourth - Insist that the problem is so bad that government intervention in private lives is necessary. Take fat children away from their parents. Sterilize fat people so they can't have any more children like themselves. Deny fat people the right to go to restaurants or to choose the food they will eat.

By this means, government income and power is increased. Liberty is decreased.

When these steps are completed find another industry and do it all over again. It worked on smoking, it will work on obesity and alcohol is also in the works.

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:05 PM
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

I do not disagree with you.

I do see that the MSM has pushed the idea that obesity causes diabetes and this is the perception of the public.

I also know through research that it is only type 2 diabetes (T2D) that is blamed on obesity through metabolic syndrome.

As prevention is the 'best form of cure' the 'cure' for metabolic syndrome, may be linked to diet and so it follows that changing diet may help to prevent metabolic syndrome which is linked to type 2 diabetes. As the OP stated.

Type 2 diabetes has also been linked to stress, This study shows a correlation between depression and the risk of developing the disease (T2D).

I know that if I was hungry all the time due to calorie restriction I would be very irritable and would not sleep well. So maybe the diet would do some people more harm than good.

For some, exercise would give a feeling of well being, sense of control and help them to sleep, so maybe the two would have to go hand in hand.

Any conspiracy by the Gov to push the blame game is not the point of the thread. It does not help us to determine whether or not calorie restriction could help to cure/prevent some cases diabetes.

edit on 9-12-2011 by Threegirls because: Added another link

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:41 PM
reply to post by Threegirls

you have also failed to consider the effects of aging.

A calorie restriction that controls wieght at 20, may be insufficient at 30 and so on. As you are aware - diabetes is a life sentence. Consider the effect of decreasing metabolic rates.

Further, consider the effect of life itself. Under 20's may find it easy to balance diet and exercise but as life takes over - you get a job to make a living. Then you have a couple of kids. All of a sudden - there is decreased time and energy for exercise etc.

No - I don't think you can consider your research without looking at each and every study - seeing who funds it and who stands to profit by it. Unfortunately, science is for sale nowadays. It is only by examining every aspect of a study (including its methodology) that you can consider if it has any real value.

you have provided one study - and its not even a study - its a review of other studies without offering anything new in its re-interpretation of other studies and recommendation. Its NOT even science! Its just an opinion piece.

Please provide another study that actually supports your point of view that obesity causes diabetes that is more than just an opinion piece.

Tired of Control Freaks

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in