Posts by rustymoose54

Susan Martin24 said:(though honestly, so many women act like they're terminal from day one of pregnancy—like, taking disability leave when they don't even need it... I have this friend specializing in surgery over in Baltimore who was working right up until seven days before she gave birth, and then she was straight back to the job just three weeks later)

Susan Martin24, I'm starting to think you've actually never been pregnant... 😉 😁

Kyle Nelson2 said:blah blah blah...

So, regarding diabetes—I remember watching this segment on "60 Minutes" about it, where they had some supposed expert claiming obesity is the main culprit because it supposedly increases your actual cell count, forcing your pancreas to work overtime until it just burns out...

But look, I’ve read enough online to know that when you gain weight, you aren't actually growing more cells; they just get bigger, so that whole theory is total garbage...
I mean, I'm no doctor, but when some big-shot specialist gets things dead wrong on national TV, you gotta wonder who's actually tripping here, right?

1. People who carry the genetic markers for Type 2 diabetes will almost certainly develop it if they overeat.

2. People who DON'T have those specific genes won't develop it, even if they eat way too much.

3. Keeping a decent weight is the best way to prevent Type 2 diabetes—mostly because none of us really know if we're carrying those genes or not.

So, please, just accept this simple reality: you can't catch Type 2 diabetes if you don't have the genetic predisposition, no matter how unhealthy your lifestyle is. That doesn't make it anyone's "fault" if they do get sick—it's just a lucky break for the others who can gorge themselves and stay fine. In other words, you can keep going on your crusade against overweight people, blaming them for causing their own illnesses... but some people just didn't get lucky with their DNA, whatever... 😉

Kyle Nelson2 said:man...
look, this whole "it's all in your genes" thing? I'm just not buying it. Honestly, whenever I hear people peddling that line, my first thought is always—how much are they getting paid to spout that nonsense?

Look, you can choose whatever fairy tale you want to believe, but I *know*—and I’m not just talking about my own opinion here, I mean actual professionals in the biomedical sciences—that there's a specific set of genes that basically act as a prerequisite for type 2 diabetes to even show up in the first place. 🙂

Angela Rodriguez2 said:Okay, sure, that’s possible—genetics sets the stage for a predisposition—but if that 280lb person of yours actually weighed, say, 170 or 180lbs, that predisposition would never have spiraled into an actual disease. You get what I'm saying? Or do you still think I'm just "talking absolute nonsense"?

Look, two overweight people both weighing 280lbs can be in totally different health boats. Take Person A, who's cycled through ten different fad diets... all those crazy shifts might have triggered some metabolic chaos that finally pushed those dormant diabetes genes into overdrive. Meanwhile, Person B? They just chill, never even thought about dieting, never messed with their metabolism, so their body stays in a weird kind of equilibrium that actually works better for their overall health...

Do you see the point now?.. 😉

Of course you're still talking nonsense, but honestly, man, that seems to be your whole job description at this point.

You claimed genetics plays zero role in Type 2, then when I told you that was dead wrong, you just kept rambling... so I doubled down and said genetics is absolutely essential for Type 2 development. Now you're trying to use this specific example to wiggle out of it, but you're failing miserably and you're completely off base.

Basically, if you take two overweight people living the exact same lifestyle and eating the exact same stuff for years, one will develop Type 2 diabetes and the other won't. Why? Because the first one carries the specific gene cluster responsible for triggering it, and the second one doesn't.

That doesn't mean the second person is going to be some picture of perfect health, obviously... but they aren't going to get diabetes. ☕

Angela Rodriguez2 said:You’re using the word "predisposed"?

Look, just because someone has a genetic predisposition doesn't mean they're automatically doomed to get a disease... the actual deciding factor is whether they actually become overweight or not. And once they do, everyone starts pointing fingers at genetics like it's some kind of scapegoat—it isn't! It's their lifestyle and their trash diet. I mean, I think that's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain, right? If someone is overweight, something is clearly wrong with their habits. 😢

It's honestly like when people claim someone's left leg hurts just because they're old... meanwhile, their right leg is the exact same age and feels perfectly fine... 😁

Pure nonsense, seriously.

Trust me, Type 2 diabetes is all about those genes. If you don't have the genetic makeup for it, you could spend your entire life weighing 280 pounds at 5'7", and you still won't develop diabetes. You might end up with a million other issues, sure, but not diabetes.

Angela Rodriguez2 said:Look, if we were talking about Type 1 diabetes, sure, maybe I'd see your point... but when it comes to Type 2 prediabetes? Genetics is everything. It all boils down to what’s sitting on the kitchen table—what the parents are eating and passing down to the kids. It's those same crappy food habits being drilled into them, whether they realize they're doing it or not.

Nah, I've gotta disagree there... heredity plays a massive role in Type 2. If it was just about lifestyle, then every single overweight person out there would be diabetic by now, and we both know that's just not how it works in reality.

Jose Miller3 said:off-topic: rustymoose54, are you ghosting my DM on purpose, or did you just miss it because you were too busy staring at all this gorgeous stuff?

I honestly can't even tell anymore—my head is spinning from all these crazy colors, shapes, and patterns... it's just too much, man. totally wild.

Justin Fox said:- tearing during childbirth is actually pretty rare—the body is super flexible there, especially thanks to those pregnancy hormones kicking in

The body isn't exactly "super flexible thanks to pregnancy hormones" 😁, trust me 😉... if there’s no actual tearing happening, then a routine episiotomy is just totally pointless.

Justin Fox said:- tearing usually isn't a huge deal; most small tears heal up just fine on their own or maybe with a stitch or two

I haven't been through it myself, but I know someone where things went south because they didn't have time to make a clean cut, so it was definitely not pretty. We're talking way beyond "small tears."

Justin Fox said:- tearing happens more often when labor is rushed—like, if things move too fast instead of letting the woman follow her own rhythm, or if you support and massage the perineum, the chances of tearing go down

Hm, what do you mean by "supporting" the perineum?

Justin Fox said:- doing perineal massages during pregnancy can help boost tissue elasticity and lower the risk of tearing
- think about a scrap of fabric—if you grab both ends and pull, it’s hard to rip. but if you nick it in the middle first and then pull? *rip*: it's the same thing with human tissue: a cut makes further tearing way more likely

Either it tears or it doesn't... it really just comes down to how much elasticity there is versus how big the baby is.

Justin Fox said:- cuts often lead to further tearing that goes toward the anus, which brings months of pain and issues
- the idea that a clean cut heals better than a tear doesn't always hold up, especially if the stitching is sloppy

If the stitching is bad, the woman is going to have problems regardless—whether they did a clean surgical cut or it was just a natural tear. But yeah, a clean cut is generally easier to sew back together. 😉 😁

Justin Fox said:- maybe it'll tear, you're definitely gonna end up with some damage
- honestly, cutting isn't even necessary most of the time: you're better off prepping with massage and just taking things slow rather than getting cut and dealing with the fallout later...

Look, if you want to claim that cutting is usually unnecessary, you'd need actual data from massive studies to back that up. Like, those studies would have to exist first, right? And when it comes to the whole speed and rhythm of labor... I'm afraid both you and I—just two theorists talking here—can't really have a competent debate about it.

Justin Fox said:- unfortunately, medical textbooks describe cutting as a good thing, but they're wrong. It's been proven in several clinical studies, but those results haven't made it back into the official literature yet. I guess in medicine, it takes like a hundred years for that to happen... besides, if they don't cut, they've got nothing to do and nothing to bill for.

Is this enough for you?

Wait, what do you mean by "results haven't made it back into the literature"? Are the studies not being published? Or are they just being ignored? And saying "if they don't cut, they've got nothing to charge for" is a total reach—it's definitely not a real argument. Most doctors have plenty to do during a delivery; the question is just how they choose to handle it. Plus, the paycheck is the same whether they perform a cut or just help support the perineum...😁

you didn't really give me any actual counterarguments though—like, what happens if she just tears? (without any proper stitching, obviously)... you're left with wounds and scarring, and I'm guessing a hell of a lot of pain too

I honestly can't decide which is better—getting a routine episiotomy or just letting things happen "naturally"... I'd love to hear from someone who actually knows what they're talking about regarding this stuff.

Kyle Nelson2 said:so... I'd be willing to take a wild guess here—and yeah, I'm totally just an amateur—but since we know the issue kicks in when fat cells start leaking grease (they're basically porous), maybe the whole mess isn't actually about being overweight, but more about how those fat cells are behaving...

again... (just my uneducated hunch though)...
since cortisol receptors (you know, that stress hormone) are most concentrated right in the belly area—which explains why people tend to pack on the gut when they're stressed out—we could probably assume that stress messes with the way those cells function, making them all leaky and weird...

look, I'm no expert

Ugh, it's way more complicated than that, and honestly, I don't know the specifics of Type 2 pathophysiology either. But anyway, it's not really about "leaking" fat—I mean, I'm not even sure what you mean by "leaking," really?

Bottom line—insulin resistance happens mostly, and I mean *mostly*, because of excess body fat.

The thing patients really need to grasp is this: if you weigh all the different meds used for Type 2 against actual weight loss... the one that's actually going to move the needle and stop the disease in its tracks is losing the weight.

Kyle Nelson2 said:yeah... but...

when you lose weight, you aren't actually cutting down the number of cells... you're just shrinking their volume...

and I mean, they basically found out those things are "a bit leaky" when it comes to the fat they're holding onto—so that probably plays a huge role in the whole thing... it's not about the cell count...

So, regarding keeping a constant number of fat cells (once you're an adult)—you're spot on. Losing weight doesn't kill them off; it just shrinks them down, which helps lower insulin resistance and goes a long way in preventing Type 2 diabetes.

Kyle Nelson2 said:fat cells that store lipids can actually swell up to dozens of times their size...

that’s how they hold onto all that fat...

but if you think there's some other magic trick, then explain this to me—how is it that once you strip away 90% of those fat cells from your gut, you aren't just ballooning back up immediately?

yeah, exactly. so, by losing weight, we’re shrinking those cells down, which means the body doesn't need nearly as much insulin.

And since insulin doses (the synthetic stuff) are basically calculated based on your body mass—meaning the bigger you are, the more you need—it all connects.

The thing is, if you manage to clear out those fat cells in your abdomen but you keep eating way more than you're burning off... well, your body just starts building them up somewhere else. 😁

Kyle Nelson2 said:So, here's the thing...
from what I've gathered, we actually have a set number of fat cells in our bodies—they don't just multiply or anything...

if that weren't the case, aggressive liposuction wouldn't even be a thing... because we could just keep gaining weight indefinitely...

If that were true, nobody would ever be able to gain weight... 😁

Rachel Brooks63 said:Look, let me play devil's advocate here for a second. You can't just "prevent" Type 1 right now, sure—but I’m betting that as we actually start wrapping our heads around autoimmune stuff and what triggers it, some big-shot pharma companies are gonna figure out how to spot people who are genetically predisposed. Then, they'll jump in with a therapy at the very first sign of trouble to stop it from ever fully developing in kids.

Well, we're kind of already doing something like that by giving micro-doses of insulin to people known—based on those specific genes—to be at risk for Type 1. It's basically trying to predict the onset. But honestly? It’s not nearly good enough, and for the patient, it sucks because it’s super limiting... plus you're constantly looking over your shoulder for unnecessary hypoglycemic episodes.

As for me, nobody ever bothered with genetic testing before I got sick—guess why? Because I don't have a hereditary predisposition to Type 1. I don't have those "signature" genes or whatever... we only did the testing after the fact.

Kyle Nelson2 said:I’m just a layman here, but from what I’ve read, the cells that pump out insulin actually have a tendency to regenerate—it’s just those occasional, naggingly high blood sugar spikes that end up... wrecking them...

Nah, that's not how it works for Type 1. Those cells get wiped out in one massive hit, and then after that, any "new" cells trying to step up to the plate for a little while—which is why people talk about that "honeymoon phase"—might last maybe a year or so, but eventually, they all die off.

People with Type 1 don't usually have high blood sugar if they're managing things right—my own levels stay between 40 and 125 mg/dL every single day because I'm obsessed with what they call "tight control." But honestly? Nothing has regenerated for me, trust me. 😁

What you're talking about is more of a Type 2 thing. With Type 2, the main headache is insulin resistance. The cells are making insulin, sure, but the body can't actually use it effectively—usually because the insulin receptors (those little molecules on the cell membrane that catch the insulin and let it do its job) are basically broken. Because of that inefficiency, you end up with a relative lack of insulin (whereas Type 1 is an absolute lack). To compensate, the pancreas goes into overdrive—because of that feedback loop—so the higher the sugar climbs, the more the pancreas feels like it needs to crank out more insulin. So, yeah, there's plenty of insulin floating around, but what good is it if it can't do its one job... which is letting glucose move from the blood into the tissue cells to feed them...

The harder the pancreas tries to keep up, the more exhausted and burnt out it gets, until finally, it just can't keep up with the high sugar anymore... and so, on top of the resistance, you end up with failing pancreatic function too.

That’s why Type 2 patients are usually prescribed two different kinds of meds: stuff to lower resistance and stuff to nudge the pancreas along to produce more insulin. And look, the big takeaway for Type 2 is that losing weight is huge—the fewer cells we have (especially fat cells), the less insulin we need, so we don't have to constantly torture the poor pancreas.

Hope that makes sense... 🙂

placidfox55 said:I haven't been keeping up with the latest posts in this thread, but just to catch everyone up... Type 1 diabetes might be impossible to prevent (at least for now), but Type 2—which we see way more often—can definitely be prevented if you play your cards right. 🙂

🙄
I feel like I’ve said it a thousand times already—I got sick when I was just a kid. Did you seriously not pick up on which type I was talking about from that? 😉

Type 1 is absolutely, 100% non-preventable because it's all caused by some autoimmune process triggered by who-knows-what. We don't even fully get the etiology behind it yet, which is why there isn't a cure—you know, some miracle substance that would force the beta cells in the langerhansov islets to regrow and actually fight back against the body's own T-lymphocytes attacking them again. Plus, there aren't any alternative methods that actually work; the only way to live a normal life is through daily insulin shots.

As for preventing Type 2, which, for crying out loud, in recent years is starting to show up in kids even in developed nations—so yeah, not just in America 😁—Western medicine is actually putting most of its effort into preventing that specific one.

Back when I got sick twenty years ago, Type 2 wasn't happening to children, not even in the USA 😬 honestly, it blows my mind that you don't know all this.

Sandra Hayes88 said:Hey, I'm having Os doc for dinner—you wanna try some of these seeds I've been munching on?😉

Pass... my doctors here in the States have me on this super strict regimen—no experimenting with food if I want to stay on track. Gotta be consistent, you know?... 😉

Oh, great. Just perfect.

Sandra Hayes88 said:Look, honestly, if modern medicine actually wanted to succeed, they'd focus way more on prevention instead of just reacting.
And what does that have anything to do with her take on alternative medicine? It doesn't.
She still hasn't even tried any of it—she's just talking out of her ass...🙄

Sandra Hayes88, Rachel Brooks63 was trying to explain that back in the day, people died from the exact same thing I'm dealing with because the *only* way to treat it was through alternative methods. My condition CANNOT BE TREATED WITH ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE... seriously, I'd be dead.

So, hey, feel free to treat yourself however you want, but at least be consistent—if you ever catch a REAL disease, don't go running to some Western doctor if you're convinced they're inherently worse than the "alternative" crowd.

Sandra Hayes88 said:Oh, so I'm the boring one?
Heh... funny coming from you...🙄
Seriously, you barge into every single thread about holistic health just to lecture everyone with your "expertise"—honestly, it's getting old fast.😲
Maybe go find some chemistry nerd forum to bore instead... they might actually appreciate the lecture.🙂 👋

There you go again, picking fights... why don't you go count how many grains of rice you're gonna shove down your throat for lunch today? You better make sure it's an odd number... wouldn't want to mess up your precious chi or whatever.🤣