|
Hello Folks,
It strikes me that the current news stories about "rampant type two
diabetes having the potential cause of a lifetime's worth of a diet too
high in carbs" fits in with my father's theories about internal models
based on evolutionary contexts.
The mechanism at work in causing type two diabetes is very
different from what causes type one. Type one is an autoimmune syndrome. Type
two has confused people because it starts out so subtly and yet it ends up
looking exactly like type one. Atkins believed it begins with "carb
intolerance", whereby one's blood sugar spikes because of high intake of
carbs in the diet, the insuin has a corresponding spike which quickly clears the
sugar out of the blood and stores it as fat, leaving the blood with a low blood
sugar which causes a craving for more carbs. High blood sugar is toxic to the
body, and damages many delicate tissues, which is why my father (a type one
diabetic) had so many diabetic neuropathies. Among the tissues most damaged
by sugar are the islet cells in the pancreas-- the very same cells that produce
insulin.
So a cycle sets up of high blood sugar, high insulin, fat storage,
low blood sugar, and cravings, which causes carb binging and more high
blood sugar. And all the while, each spike is slowly damaging the body's ability
to produce insulin (among other things). Added to that is the fact that as a
person gains excess weight, insulin doesn't work as well and the body needs more
of it to clear the blood. When it can't produce enough to clear the blood
adequately, one has entered the realm of constant high sugar which damages
tissue at a much faster pace. This is usually when people are diagnosed with
type two diabetes. If this isn't controlled properly, the islet cells will be
destroyed over time and a type two is now in the same boat as type one, needing
insulin shots.
What Atkins was actually discussing is a phenomenon based on
the fact that, for many of us, our physiological
model calls for a different content of carbs, in
relation to protein, in human diet. I think "carb intolerance"
is a natural consequence when our intake differs substantially from
the internal models we've got. So, the epidemic of diet-based diseases is the
natural situation we would expect if the models differ from what the actual
system is doing. We develop side effects.
However, this is an interesting juxtaposition of where the model is
and where the system is: Both are physiological in this case, rather than
science creating an artificial model and applying it to a natural system, and
recommending action based on predictions from the model. That, in a nutshell, is
what the USDA food pyramid is! It recommends carbs as the main source of intake
for a healthy diet.
I gave that set of ideas some thought and considered the
notion that a huge proportion of human disease processes are caused by
situations where we are not living or acting as our models prescribe. Since not
everyone has the same models, it behooves us to figure out methods for
discovering what our natural models are and then assess what we can safely alter
and what has dangerous consequences if we mess with it. Seen in this light,
things like "overuse injuries" are put in a new context. So is the body's
reaction to chronic stress. Also, non-disease qualities of the body like
talent that is body based, be it gross motor, fine motor, hand-eye,
ear-eye, or some other coordination in a natural ability, may also be due
to the influence of internal models based on some evolutionary context.
But this runs into the genetic influence, and I'm not sure whether
the "internal model" is genetic... or if it is; whether it is entirely genetic.
Perhaps it's an interaction between two or more different influences in
some process that we haven't detected yet. Like time. The earlier discussion on
the list about how women's menstrual cycles entrain when women live in close
proximity to each other is proof for me that our bodies interact with all sorts
of external phenomena that we don't perceive.
Interesting stuff....
Judith
|