Want to know if Type 2 #Diabetes is in your future? Okay then. (part 2)

Another fascinating paper on Insulin Resistance measures from Dr. Tommy Wood & http://icelandichealthsymposium.is/foodloose/. The Swedish guys who did this recent study used an exotic lab measurement of IR (euglycemic insulin clamp), as an alternative to simpler Kraft patterns. They called their algorithm 'CEDER'. They had followed 1049 non-diabetic peeps for >9 years, to see how the CEDER Insulin Resistance level would predict diabetes - and CHD. Here's the incidence rate that occurred for the different CEDER IR levels from 1 to 9. Bottom line: a diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes should never come as a surprise (my graphics added):

2016 Diabetes CEDER Paper.JPG

Unsurprisingly the Coronary Heart Disease plods along in the diabetic wake. With HR's that yet again make an utter joke of the 'cholesterol' metrics. And remember that these guys were only measured for insulin resistance up front in the study - many of the low IR guys would have developed IR over the years, introducing noise into the picture. Which only goes to make the results even more stunning.

 A diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes should never come as a surprise - nor should the massive heart disease that comes with it.

My earlier post on this diabetic debacle:  http://www.thefatemperor.com/blog/2016/8/6/want-to-know-if-type-2-diabetes-is-in-your-future-ok-then Also, Kraft details discussion here:


You can also see the best way to fix the curse of Hyperinsulinemia/Insulin Resistance here:

Kraft killed this nasty hyperinsulinemia/diabetes response rather effectively. He applied LCHF for starters - all the way back in 1972 !! Dr. Joseph R Kraft - a hero without the recognition...

And lookee here at what Prof Gerald Reaven saw, when he used a similar method of IR measurement. Right - it's in here:


And Dr. Jeff Gerber MD / Amy Savigian MD (with a little help from myself) have generated a poster, to expose some of the absurdity - see here:  http://denversdietdoctor.com/challenging-traditional-cardiovascular-risk-assessment/

Why run after 'cholesterol' in ever-decreasing circles, when there are genuinely accurate measures of risk available? When the elephant is in the goddamn room, and staring you in the face? Why indeed.

(The study featured here: "Comparison between indexes of insulin resistance for risk prediction of cardiovascular diseases or development of diabetes" http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2015.09.003  )

Please share like hell using the buttons below, or a method of your choosing... ;-)