Slashdot Mirror

Incorrect, an orange or orange juice is fine, both have a low glycemic index of 43 or 46, whereas cola has mid/high GI of 65, and a Gatorade has an insane GI of 78. Gatorade is a prime example of a drink that is generally accepted as being healthy when it is in fact far worse than even the generally accepted awful soda pop. Perhaps this if fine and desirable after/during working out, I don't know, but drinking Gatorade casually is a recipe for hunger, sugar crashes, and headaches.

http://www.diabetesnet.com/food-diabetes/glycemic-index

Oddly enough the diabetics I know were fat and actually lost weight once they got regular insulin injections. Type 1, not type 2.

http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_types/whatype.php

" Type 1, called IDDM (insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus), now was recognized as an autoimmune disease that appeared primarily in childhood or adolescence. Near the final phases of the attack, the person stops producing insulin and requires injected insulin. At the time of diagnosis, such a person often has excessive thirst and urination, has lost a lot of weight, and has an extremely high blood sugar. This person is normal weight or thin when Type 1 diabetes starts and may stay relatively trim through life. Type 1 occurs in about 10% of all people who have diabetes. Treatment for this type revolves around adjusting the dosages and number of insulin injections to match diet and exercise"

The reason a high-carb diet is used for fattening livestock is because it's cheap, actually. Everything else is a happy side benefit for the farmers, but price is king.

I'll grant you it's cheap, but it's also particularly effective, and there is a real biochemical reason for it.

I'll challenge you to find *any* farmer that has successfully used protein and fat to fatten livestock, in the absence of carbohydrates - it simply doesn't work. You can blame the livestock for "getting full", but in the end, even if you force fed them, you simply can't fatten an animal without carbs.

I tried a low-carb diet for a while and no matter what you do, eating a 40oz steak will fill up your stomach and make you feel bloated, it's a simple question of mass.

A 40oz steak is going to fill up your stomach, but bloating is caused by water retention due to carbohydrate intake.

You're ignoring my point about the indiginous peoples of South America and Asia subsisting in good health on high-GI diets for thousands of years before western civilization came along.

That's not true at all. Agriculture in the new world was significantly lower GI, and most indigenous peoples were primarily hunter gatherers. Check your sources.

The only way you can eat 5000 calories per day without gaining weight would be if you shit pure liquid fat to get rid of the excess calories

http://www0.epinions.com/review/Merde_by_Lewin_Ralph_Books/content_16098954884

Considering an average of 200g of feces a day, for sure you're losing calories out that end. Add ketones in the urine (5 cal/gram), and you're talking a bunch of calories that don't get stored as fat. Again, basic biochemistry - fat does not get deposited unless you've got insulin around.

But I shy away from exercise regimes that like to bill themselves as revolutions, major giant breakthroughs etc., it smacks of sensationalism and infomercials. It may be a good regime, but why would it advertise itself like that if it was?

I agree, the whole "revolution" thing is overrated, but damn, it works. 30 minutes a week, and I keep getting stronger every week. You hit plateaus every once in a while, but it's great to stay strong without spending hours in the gym.

If I ate the exact same amount of calories as pure simple carbs instead? Yeah, I'd gain weight. I didn't say GI was completely irrelevant, but there are other factors which are far more relevant.

Well, quantify it - if you switched out 200g of what you currently eat for 200g of sugar, how many pounds would you expect to gain (keeping exercise constant)? Now, without switching out, how many extra calories do you think you'd have to eat in addition to gain that same amount of pounds.

Have you gotten a chance to listen to Mr. Taubes' lecture yet?

There are already a few available continuous blood glucose meters available and last time I checked at least a few of them were approved by the FDA (thus covered by medical insurance in the USA).

Being a type 1 diabetic myself, I have fought to get one of these myself but the powers-that-be here in Norway seem to think there are no advantages to having your blood glucose measured every 1-2 to 5 minutes for 3-7 days (depending on which monitor you get), at least not compared to the price of these gadgets. Pretty insanely ignorant, as having this info available would let me easily have perfect blood glucose levels at all times. Hell, some of these meters even come with an optional automatic insulin pump!

At first I got excited about the inhaled insulin, but after reading it again, it seems pretty lame. It's freaking huge (12"?!?!), doses are very imprecise, and only good for people who take more than 60 units of short-acting insulin per day. I despise large testing/insulin devices as I try to be as discreet and normal as possible and I only take about 15 units of short-acting insulin per day. So basically, this thing is useless to me. I guess I just have to wait another 20 years...

Your business skills had nothing to do with it. Had your device simply measured blood sugar levels continuously and accurately (sensitivity and specificity), a multitude of companies would have been knocking on your door with money in hand.

Just look, it took a company 10 years to get this one to the public... Just don't sweat, don't get cold, and don't rely on it. Oh ya, did I mention it causes irritation and needs 3 hours of prep time before it starts giving readings? And it's one of the best out there!
http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_technology/glu cowatch.php

Many drugs that can't be administered orally could be administered in a mist to the lung epithelium, such as insulin. As any good cigarette smoker knows, absorbing a drug through one's mucosa and alveoli can be quite effective. I'm unsure if this would work well with non-live immunization, though the lung does have a large quantity of macrophages that can act as antigen presenting cells.

No more overdose, no more child proof caps!