3 ms·

Sorry for being dense (or having a "blind spot" I guess), but I still don't comprehend how this answers my question.

fidotron 2y ago
To go back to what I said which you were responding to > the fact that different people respond to the same consumed items completely differently You are making this more specific than it is to be just about sugar and diabetes. My, non radical, assertion is that different metabolisms lead people to process the same things in fundamentally different ways. Some of these clearly lead to diabetes (and gout etc). The underlying problem is consuming x or y in isolation could be ok for everyone but in some people x and y are dangerous. Given the mix of what we consume this rapidly becomes a combinatorial headache (especially if factoring in gut bacteria) so there is some sympathy for researchers in this area, but the tendency to confuse cause and effect is way too common.
- dataflow 2y ago
  So this is what I'm hung up on: > The problem is not the sugar per se, but the fact that different people respond to the same consumed items completely You stated as a fact that sugar itself is not the problem, and you point to other causes (earlier, differing metabolic responses among people; now, a different substance being a confounding factor) as the explanation. But these just seem to be hand-waving conjectures about how something else could be the problem, not anything factually indicating that sugar itself isn't. Furthermore, the fact that some people respond differently to sugar would not itself imply that sugar itself is not the problem, which is what's been throwing me off about your discussions. There are plenty of illnesses that some people are resistant or even immune to. There are also plenty of cases where some people initially tolerate a substance but then eventually -- even after many years -- suddenly start showing severe reactions to it, simply as a result of excess consumption. The fact that people don't have the same uniform responses to the same substances doesn't necessarily mean the substances aren't the problem. This is why I'm saying I can't follow your logic. Your conclusion that sugar itself isn't the problem might still be correct; I don't know. I'm just saying I don't see how your explanations imply that conclusion.

To go back to what I said which you were responding to > the fact that different people respond to the same consumed items completely differently You are making this more specific than it is to be just about sugar and diabetes. My, non radical, assertion is that different metabolisms lead people to process the same things in fundamentally different ways. Some of these clearly lead to diabetes (and gout etc). The underlying problem is consuming x or y in isolation could be ok for everyone but in some people x and y are dangerous. Given the mix of what we consume this rapidly becomes a combinatorial headache (especially if factoring in gut bacteria) so there is some sympathy for researchers in this area, but the tendency to confuse cause and effect is way too common.

dataflow 2y ago
So this is what I'm hung up on: > The problem is not the sugar per se, but the fact that different people respond to the same consumed items completely You stated as a fact that sugar itself is not the problem, and you point to other causes (earlier, differing metabolic responses among people; now, a different substance being a confounding factor) as the explanation. But these just seem to be hand-waving conjectures about how something else could be the problem, not anything factually indicating that sugar itself isn't. Furthermore, the fact that some people respond differently to sugar would not itself imply that sugar itself is not the problem, which is what's been throwing me off about your discussions. There are plenty of illnesses that some people are resistant or even immune to. There are also plenty of cases where some people initially tolerate a substance but then eventually -- even after many years -- suddenly start showing severe reactions to it, simply as a result of excess consumption. The fact that people don't have the same uniform responses to the same substances doesn't necessarily mean the substances aren't the problem. This is why I'm saying I can't follow your logic. Your conclusion that sugar itself isn't the problem might still be correct; I don't know. I'm just saying I don't see how your explanations imply that conclusion.