ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags acromegaly , diabetes , sugar

Reply
Old 13th May 2018, 05:44 AM   #81
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,140
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
....... Add in an "insulin receptor anomaly", and you have diabetes...........
That's simply not so. You have an increased vulnerability to diabetes, perhaps, but you most certainly have not been handed a genome which guarantees diabetes.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 08:16 AM   #82
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,831
Other demonstrably true nutritional health advice: Avoid artificial trans fats.
It reduces the risk of death from ischemic heart disease considerably, something from which diabetics will probably benefit more than most other people.
Unfortunately, it's often difficult to so much about this problem unless industry is forced to reduce their use of dietary trans fatty acids:
Trans Fat Bans Reduce Heart Disease Deaths: Study (Time Health).
Quote:
For food companies, these trans fats are a boon, extending shelf life and ensuring food tastes the same over time. But for humans, the fundamental change in molecules can spell disaster for the heart.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 15th May 2018 at 08:26 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 03:55 PM   #83
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Other demonstrably true nutritional health advice: Avoid artificial trans fats.
It reduces the risk of death from ischemic heart disease considerably, something from which diabetics will probably benefit more than most other people.
Unfortunately, it's often difficult to so much about this problem unless industry is forced to reduce their use of dietary trans fatty acids:
Trans Fat Bans Reduce Heart Disease Deaths: Study (Time Health).
The scientist have always lumped hydrogenated vegetable fats in with saturated fats. My feeling is that the trans fats in the HVF is the ONLY bad fat. If they had called it a vegetable oil, we would all be eating lard to good effect.

Worst trans fat concentration is in the factory made foods. They can use frosting that uses fats that are up to 45% trans. At least if you home cook your confections you would use HVO that is "Zero grams per serving". Which might still be 8% trans.

It's not the fast food burgers, it's the HVO in the fries that kills us. I cook all of my own meals. I use beef shortening when I fry. .5% trans, and it does not oxidize like veggie oils, so no rancidity. I never throw any away, it all gets eaten. So it starts at $5/gallon, and gets cheaper. Liquid vegetable oils are used to make great varnishes and paints though. LInseed oil and Flax oil are the same stuff. Eating your varnish would be just as good for your health as avoiding animal fats.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 05:23 PM   #84
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,197
" Artificial " is the key word..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2018, 10:12 PM   #85
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,831
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
My feeling is that the trans fats in the HVF is the ONLY bad fat.

For the time being, it remains just a feeling that the naturally occurring trans fats in meat are harmless:

Quote:
Small amounts of trans fats occur naturally in some meat and dairy products, including beef, lamb and butterfat. There have not been sufficient studies to determine whether these naturally occurring trans fats have the same bad effects on cholesterol levels as trans fats that have been industrially manufactured.
Trans Fat (American Heart Association)

But some of the experts have the same assumption as you.


Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
" Artificial " is the key word..

Not always, but in this case it is. Or you might use the term, ”industrially-produced trans-fatty acids”.


Interesting study for diabetics who want to lose weight. However, insulin/C-peptide wasn’t measured in the study:
Weight loss and weight loss maintenance efficacy of a novel weight loss program: The retrospective RNPC® cohort (Obesity Medicine, Vol. 10, June 2018)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 15th May 2018 at 10:15 PM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2018, 12:51 AM   #86
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,831
The pill pushers ain’t gonna like this one:

Quote:
Hypotesen er, at ved at spise mindre kulhydrat, lidt mere fedt og protein kan man erstatte en eller flere af de piller, patienterne tager. Steen Bendix Haugaard er sammen med overlæge Thure Krarup i gang med at finde investering til et måltidskassekoncept til behandling af sukkersyge.
Ny professor vil behandle multisygdomme ved hjælp af kost (Dagens medicin, May 14, 2018)

”The hypothesis is that by eating less carbohydrate, a little more fat and protein, you can replace one or more of the pills taken by patients. Together with leading physician Thure Krarup, Steen Bendix Haugaard is in the process of finding an investment for a ‘meal-box concept’ for the treatment of diabetes.” (Google translate results in a rather good translation of the (short) article.)

Unfortunately, I don’t think that the Novo Nordisk Foundation will be among the investors …


There’s also this new study:
Pathways and mechanisms linking dietary components to cardiometabolic disease: thinking beyond calories
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2018, 01:34 AM   #87
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,569
casebro - you seem to be almost thinking that we in terms of evolution are "finished", it's a dynamic process and there will be dead ends, detours, coincidental factors either good or bad at an individual level so even if it appears that today there is a "good" side to the progressions towards diabetes it doesn't mean that evolved because it was directly beneficial, it could also be something that was until we started to interrupt the usual evolutionary mechanisms being weeded out so to speak.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2018, 05:41 AM   #88
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
Darat, I'm also thinking that the diabetes takes a confluence of several individual genes. Each of which may have an evolutionary advantage but any of several combinations will cause sugars to spike. And some of those minor defects my be treatable with diet variations. Such as the low carb diet, supplementing with COQ10 (11% of us can't make out own) cut back on fermented wheat (15% lack the CYP2D6 enzyme)... Use the same concept for any age related disease, arthritis, heart disease, cancer. Each one of us has 300,000 suspected bad gene SNPs out of 40,000,000. We are each a unique combination. It will take AI to figure it all out.

I eagerly await our "Precision Medicine" Overlords.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

Last edited by casebro; 19th May 2018 at 05:44 AM.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2018, 06:09 AM   #89
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
Check out how one diabetes related gene can effect several systems:

Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghrelin:

Gene, transcription products, and structure
Preproghrelin (green and blue) and ghrelin (green).

The GHRL gene produces mRNA which has four exons. Five products arise: the first is the 117-amino acid preproghrelin. (It is homologous to promotilin; both are members of the motilin family). It is cleaved to produce proghrelin which is cleaved to produce a 28-amino acid ghrelin (unacylated) and C-ghrelin(acylated). Obestatin is presumed to be cleaved from C-ghrelin.[18]

Ghrelin only becomes active when caprylic (octanoic) acid is linked posttranslationally to serine at the 3-position by the enzyme ghrelin O-acyltransferase (GOAT). It is located on the cell membrane of ghrelin cells in the stomach and pancreas.[19] The non-octanoylated form is desacyl ghrelin. It does not activate the GHS-R receptor but does have other effects: cardiac,[20] anti-ghrelin,[21] appetite stimulation,[22] and inhibition of hepatic glucose output[23] Side-chains other than octanoyl have also been observed: these can also trigger the ghrelin receptor.[24] In particular, decanoyl ghrelin has been found to constitute a significant portion of circulating ghrelin in mice, but as of 2011 its presence in humans has not been established.[25]
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2018, 07:30 AM   #90
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
Upload a screen shot of interrelated T2D gene SNPs

This shot shows a graph of the interrelations of my 24 known "bad" gene snps out of 97 known to be related to T2D. Pink are the snps, purple are diseases, blues are the footnotes.

See that RS 1042522 at about the 8:00 position is related to a whole lot of diseases. (I need to look into that- diet and exercise might help the T2D, but won't I still have all those other probs? ) Also that Obesity at 2:00 is only linked to 4 of the T2D genes.

Those 24 baddies have from 1.2 to 4 x the relative risk of T2D. Add/combine/ or mutiply them together and fersure my T2D is genetic.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Screenshot-2018-5-19 Screenshot.jpg (32.7 KB, 5 views)
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2018, 07:53 AM   #91
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,093
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Darat, I'm also thinking that the diabetes takes a confluence of several individual genes. Each of which may have an evolutionary advantage but any of several combinations will cause sugars to spike. And some of those minor defects my be treatable with diet variations. Such as the low carb diet, supplementing with COQ10 (11% of us can't make out own) cut back on fermented wheat (15% lack the CYP2D6 enzyme)... Use the same concept for any age related disease, arthritis, heart disease, cancer. Each one of us has 300,000 suspected bad gene SNPs out of 40,000,000. We are each a unique combination. It will take AI to figure it all out.

I eagerly await our "Precision Medicine" Overlords.
You will wait.

There is as yet no certainty. My experience is that my mother had type 2 and spent a year on the injections. After which it was managed by diet (and she left room for judicious sinning). Nevertheless, she always carried the gear in case of emergency. She could detect in herself if a hypo or hyper was near and take appropriate pre-emptive action. How? she could distinguish the difference. How could she do that? I don't know and can't now ask since she died in 2008.

Anyhoo, because of her situation, she was involved in various support groups. Those ranged from people who could not stop insulin to those who refused to take it to those who forgot to take it. Apparently, alcoholics were the biggest car wreck. They would start with the best intentions, hit the bar and lose the plot.

Anyway, on to the evolutionary advantage, if any. The confounding problem is that in modern times, we have technology to maintain diabetes. In former times, diabetics would simply have died out. Why, then, is there diabetes at all? As noted, it is a confluence of genes, thus all of them will not die out. All of them will individually survive in various individuals and from time to time some or all of them will by chance surface from time to time in the same individual.

Each of those mutations, taken in isolation, might well have some advantage, but when they converge by accident of inheritance, they cause diabetes in a given individual. Logically, I must be carrying at least some of those genes given my mothers history. Were I to have children with somebody who had some of the other genes, then it's a lottery for them.

So far, I take after my fathers side, robustly insulin stable. That said, I had a colleague many years ago who simply ceased to function unless regularly fed. I could not understand why he would suddenly announce "I can't work, I have to eat" while in contrast, he could not understand how I could do a 72 hr stretch without eating at all. And I am not a big guy. 5'8" and 150#. In hindsight, I would call the guy borderline diabetic.

Bottom line is that there is, like all things, a spectrum. We all appear on it somewhere. The question for each of us where on the spectrum do we appear. Nobody has quite figured that out yet.

As a footnote, his daughter went on a permanent insulin pump. Seems to me, he contributed more than a few of those genes, and his wife the rest. A confluence. Funny that.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2018, 08:37 AM   #92
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
You will wait.

....
Most of what you say shows that you do understand the genetics. And Nothing in your anecdote has anything to do with the wait for Precision Medicine.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2018, 08:49 AM   #93
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post

There is as yet no certainty. My experience is that my mother had type 2 and spent a year on the injections. After which it was managed by diet (and she left room for judicious sinning). Nevertheless, she always carried the gear in case of emergency. She could detect in herself if a hypo or hyper was near and take appropriate pre-emptive action. How? she could distinguish the difference. How could she do that? I don't know and can't now ask since she died in 2008.
I know from personal experience as well as reading that you can't tell high from low, only that you are off. So test and take action as required. And she died- at what age?

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Anyway, on to the evolutionary advantage, if any. The confounding problem is that in modern times, we have technology to maintain diabetes. In former times, diabetics would simply have died out. Why, then, is there diabetes at all? As noted, it is a confluence of genes, thus all of them will not die out. All of them will individually survive in various individuals and from time to time some or all of them will by chance surface from time to time in the same individual.

Each of those mutations, taken in isolation, might well have some advantage, but when they converge by accident of inheritance, they cause diabetes in a given individual. Logically, I must be carrying at least some of those genes given my mothers history. Were I to have children with somebody who had some of the other genes, then it's a lottery for them.
Exactly what I said.

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
So far, I take after my fathers side, robustly insulin stable. That said, I had a colleague many years ago who simply ceased to function unless regularly fed. I could not understand why he would suddenly announce "I can't work, I have to eat" while in contrast, he could not understand how I could do a 72 hr stretch without eating at all...
Glucagon, which raises blood sugar, is a separate hormone from insulin. I'm sure there is also gentic variations there too, and separate form diabetes. Confounding with excess insulin though.

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post

Bottom line is that there is, like all things, a spectrum. We all appear on it somewhere. The question for each of us where on the spectrum do we appear. Nobody has quite figured that out yet.

As a footnote, his daughter went on a permanent insulin pump. Seems to me, he contributed more than a few of those genes, and his wife the rest. A confluence. Funny that.
Lots of different genes involved in glucose metabolism. See why I said AI will be needed to sort it all out?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2018, 08:59 AM   #94
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,093
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Most of what you say shows that you do understand the genetics. And Nothing in your anecdote has anything to do with the wait for Precision Medicine.
Somehow, you thought I was having a go at you personally.

If that is where you are, I wish you well and respectfully withdraw. Good luck.

You remind me of my Ex. Her way or the highway. If you are quite happy to reject those sympathetic to your particular situation, you are truly lost. That is your choice to interpret it so.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2018, 09:56 AM   #95
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,735
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
And not only that, some of the risk factors for Type 2 diabetes (obesity, lack of exercise, smoking) were probably not problems that our ancestors had to deal with.
Not to mention an environment where we were not perpetually stewing in a witches brew of pollutants, artificial chemicals, etc.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2018, 01:02 AM   #96
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,548
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
T2D is such a common genetic disease there must be an advantage to it, or it would have been eliminated from the gene pool.
Type II diabetes is exceedingly rare during reproductive age. Therefore your premise is wrong and any conclusions you draw from it are liable to be false.

It's also rather uncommon in a society without access to significant dietary intake of processed sugar and with a life expectancy of ~50 years at 5 years of age (and ~35 at birth), which covers something like ~99.9% of human existence.

I could also say "no, lol" you know.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2018, 05:54 AM   #97
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,831
Really?!
It’s not what I would call ”excedingly rare”:

Quote:
In 2012, adults aged 45 to 64 were the most diagnosed age group for diabetes. New cases of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes in people aged 20 years and older were distributed as follows:
• ages 20 to 44: 371,000 new cases
• ages 45 to 64: 892,000 new cases
• age 65 and older: 400,000 new cases
Age of Onset for Type 2 Diabetes: Know Your Risk (healthline.com)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2018, 06:13 AM   #98
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Type II diabetes is exceedingly rare during reproductive age. Therefore your premise is wrong and any conclusions you draw from it are liable to be false.

It's also rather uncommon in a society without access to significant dietary intake of processed sugar and with a life expectancy of ~50 years at 5 years of age (and ~35 at birth), which covers something like ~99.9% of human existence.

I could also say "no, lol" you know.

McHrozni
Reproductive age for males = as long as they live.

And females actually reproducing get "gestational diabetes". But I don't know whether overeating is a risk factor, maybe not? That may be a factor in both our theorys.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2018, 07:59 AM   #99
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,713
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Reproductive age for males = as long as they live.

And females actually reproducing get "gestational diabetes". But I don't know whether overeating is a risk factor, maybe not? That may be a factor in both our theorys.
Overeating is a risk factor.

"Being overweight, obese or severely obese increases the risk by a factor 2.1, 3.6 and 8.6, respectively."
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2018, 08:10 AM   #100
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
I'll guess the obvious trigger is becoming sedentary while pregnant. But perhaps some hormonal change could be involved. Hmm, I'll have to read a bit.

Only took a minute
Quote:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15005780

Adiponectin is reduced in gestational diabetes mellitus in normal weight women.....Adiponectin is an adipose tissue-derived protein counteracting insulin resistance and inflammation.....
Would you look at that, T2D happens in normo-weight people too.

Now to look into adiponectin genes.

And look at that, an adiponectin gene 'defect', rs17300539(G;G) I do have that one too. Though so does almost every body else.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

Last edited by casebro; 21st May 2018 at 08:28 AM.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2018, 01:03 PM   #101
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,184
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Type II diabetes is exceedingly rare during reproductive age. Therefore your premise is wrong and any conclusions you draw from it are liable to be false.

It's also rather uncommon in a society without access to significant dietary intake of processed sugar and with a life expectancy of ~50 years at 5 years of age (and ~35 at birth), which covers something like ~99.9% of human existence.

I could also say "no, lol" you know.

McHrozni
In humans childcare is an important component of long term reproductive success, and grandparents have a strong influence on childcare.

See for instance:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...51.short?rss=1
Quote:
Postmenopausal longevity may have evolved in our lineage when ancestral grandmothers subsidized their daughters' fertility by provisioning grandchildren, but the verbal hypothesis has lacked mathematical support until now. Here, we present a formal simulation in which life spans similar to those of modern chimpanzees lengthen into the modern human range as a consequence of grandmother effects. Greater longevity raises the chance of living through the fertile years but is opposed by costs that differ for the sexes. Our grandmother assumptions are restrictive. Only females who are no longer fertile themselves are eligible, and female fertility extends to age 45 years. Initially, there are very few eligible grandmothers and effects are small. Grandmothers can support only one dependent at a time and do not care selectively for their daughters' offspring. They must take the oldest juveniles still relying on mothers; and infants under the age of 2 years are never eligible for subsidy. Our model includes no assumptions about brains, learning or pair bonds. Grandmother effects alone are sufficient to propel the doubling of life spans in less than sixty thousand years.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2018, 03:41 PM   #102
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,735
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Really?!
It’s not what I would call ”excedingly rare”:
The key part being "during reproductive age". The stats you cite show exactly that.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2018, 04:24 PM   #103
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,713
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
I'll guess the obvious trigger is becoming sedentary while pregnant. But perhaps some hormonal change could be involved. Hmm, I'll have to read a bit.

Only took a minute

Would you look at that, T2D happens in normo-weight people too.

Now to look into adiponectin genes.

And look at that, an adiponectin gene 'defect', rs17300539(G;G) I do have that one too. Though so does almost every body else.
I'm struggling to see your point.

You asked about risk factors in gestational diabetes. I pointed out that obese mothers are nearly four times as likely to develop it, when compared to healthy weight mothers.

No one said people who maintain a healthy weight don't get gestational or Type II diabetes, it's that they're significantly less likely to get it than those who choose to overeat themselves into obesity.
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2018, 08:04 PM   #104
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
I'm struggling to see your point.

You asked about risk factors in gestational diabetes. I pointed out that obese mothers are nearly four times as likely to develop it, when compared to healthy weight mothers.

No one said people who maintain a healthy weight don't get gestational or Type II diabetes, it's that they're significantly less likely to get it than those who choose to overeat themselves into obesity.
The point of this thread is the genetics rather than the environmental factors.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2018, 09:00 PM   #105
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,713
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
The point of this thread is the genetics rather than the environmental factors.
Why? You seem to be assuming the conclusion.

Is genetics really the issue, considering that rates of obesity and diabetes have greatly increased in the last 50 years, and this is directly related to increased consumption and decreased activity? Is 50 years long enough to effect that much of a change in human genetics?

Why not go with the simple answer, that eating too much makes you fat, and being fat greatly increases the risk of diabetes, and other unpleasant consequences?
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2018, 11:47 PM   #106
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,831
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
Why not go with the simple answer, that eating too much makes you fat, and being fat greatly increases the risk of diabetes, and other unpleasant consequences?
Because the simple answer is too simple: In general, what you are saying is correct, but some kinds of fat are more unhealthy than others, which is why you should try to avoid them. See this study from 2007 (after Denmark had banned industrially produced trans fat), for instance: Fast Food: Unfriendly and Unhealthy.

The point of the blood-sugar diet mentioned above is that, depending on your blood-sugar type, there may be certain kinds of food that you should avoid because they make you fat but don't necessarily have the same impact on other blood-sugar types.
You also shouldn't ignore the role that exercise plays - in both skinny and obese persons.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2018, 12:33 AM   #107
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,140
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
Why? You seem to be assuming the conclusion.

Is genetics really the issue, considering that rates of obesity and diabetes have greatly increased in the last 50 years, and this is directly related to increased consumption and decreased activity? Is 50 years long enough to effect that much of a change in human genetics?

Why not go with the simple answer, that eating too much makes you fat, and being fat greatly increases the risk of diabetes, and other unpleasant consequences?
It might have something to do with Casebro weighing nearly 300 lbs (over 20 stone).
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2018, 06:24 PM   #108
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
It might have something to do with Casebro weighing nearly 300 lbs (over 20 stone).
I started this thread to discuss the genetics. And I for one learned something.

But maybe you are only here to play school yard games. If you guys came here to call me fatso, come over here and say that. neener neener.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2018, 11:08 PM   #109
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,831
Old (Mar. 18, 2009) fat-shaming thread: UK family too fat to work; wants more money.

I didn’t contribute to the thread until Mar. 29, post 310, mainly to describe how I experience seasonal weight changes (a recent photo: white sleevless T-shirt). Since I’ve never been fat, it would have been pretty easy to claim the virtue of willpower, but it would also be a lie. Based on my observations of my own weight, I don’t see any truth in that since I’ve never had to struggle with the scales, so I wanted to support the guys arguing against the (much too) simple explanation offered by people like Patsy:

Originally Posted by Patsy View Post
My point (…) is that weight loss IS exactly as simple as eating less calories than you burn. People don't become obese and remain obese because it there is some complicated, arcane formula or secret to weight loss. They become and remain obese because they take in too many calories and burn too few. It ain't rocket science.

And of course it’s not rocket science”, but it sure as hell is science: the science of nutrition (Wikipedia).

At that point, a brave poster, Ysabella, had already started debating Patsy et al, and she had even posted a photo of herself and her family, revealing that she actually weighed more than one of the members of the UK family being shamed!

I got my first infraction in that thread, so I’d better stop here. Back then, nine years ago, I found a lot of arguments against the take-in-too-many-calories-and-burn-too-few idea. More have been added by science since then. It’s not just a question of genetics, seasons, sleep, stress, metabolism, appetite, but also of living conditions: Poverty, for instance, tends to make people obese. Certain neighborhoods don't encourage exercise.
"Eating too much makes you fat" is a tautology that doesn't explain anything! (Too much of what? Why do some people become obese by eating less than some people who remain skinny?)


By the way, I think that casebro and the others are also brave when they reveal their weight in The Perpetual Forum Weight Control Thread. They can't be unaware that it may be used against them.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 26th May 2018 at 12:49 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2018, 12:21 AM   #110
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,070
Coming back to the OP, it's more that there is little or no selective pressure against an increased sensitivity to type two diabetes.

Through most of written history, and certainly before, times of plenty would have been self-limiting within a couple of generations if not shorter.

Even at the start of the 20th century, in the most powerful country on the planet, many people were stunted due to insufficient food - from the industrial areas like the Welsh Valleys, which is why there were so-called "bantam battalions" in the First World War, and which was a driver for the creation of the welfare state.

The flipside is that there would have been a selective pressure for so-called "thrifty genes" which could lead to obesity in times of plenty. By increasing susceptibility to obesity, these might be implicated in type two diabetes.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2018, 12:41 AM   #111
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,070
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Problem is that there is not the one diabetes gene. It takes a confluence of several to cause the grief. Which allows for much individual variation of disease and side effects.

For example, lets say there common gene variants that at the root of my disease. Two are each in 50% of the population, two more are each in ten. 50% x 50% x 10% x 10%, and my combination is in only .25%, or 1 in 400. ( The same concept probably holds true for many many disease states- arthritis ? arteries? eczema? blue eyes? Democrats? )

One of my variants has to do with grehlin. I call it the "Voracious appetite gene". It's not uncommon, it just makes it hard for us to "just eat less". Doable, but hard. Add in an "insulin receptor anomaly", and you have diabetes.

Evolution wise, each of those variants may have an advantage. It's only the combination that causes malaise.
Your penultimate paragraph, throughout prehistory and most of written history, your ancestors would have sent most of the time finding it very easy to eat less, as there simply wasn't enough. I can easily believe that they found it more painful than others witout that gene variant, but evolution doesn't care about anything except reproductive success. However in the short times of plenty, your ancestors would have been likely to get fat and be more likely to survive the next lean time
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2018, 05:24 PM   #112
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,713
Originally Posted by dann View Post
<snip>

I got my first infraction in that thread, so I’d better stop here. Back then, nine years ago, I found a lot of arguments against the take-in-too-many-calories-and-burn-too-few idea. More have been added by science since then. It’s not just a question of genetics, seasons, sleep, stress, metabolism, appetite, but also of living conditions: Poverty, for instance, tends to make people obese. Certain neighborhoods don't encourage exercise.
"Eating too much makes you fat" is a tautology that doesn't explain anything! (Too much of what? Why do some people become obese by eating less than some people who remain skinny?)

</snip>
Eating too much food makes you fat. It doesn't matter what, as long as you're eating more than you burn, you'll gain weight.

Some people become obese by eating less than some people who remain skinny, because of different needs, height or activity level for example.
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2018, 02:46 AM   #113
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,831
You can go on believing in your tautology. I won't stop you.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2018, 06:23 AM   #114
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,713
Originally Posted by dann View Post
You can go on believing in your tautology. I won't stop you.
Thank you. I'll keep believing in science and facts.
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2018, 12:30 PM   #115
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,831
And in the meantime, the rest of us have moved on to the science of nutrition of this millennium.
1) Your favourite slogan implies that everybody wants to be thin. That is not the case. And when you want to be fat(ter), eating more than you burn isn't "eating too much." It's eating just right!
2) And nevertheless, everybody is "eating more than you burn." I explained that 9 years ago in the thread that I linked to above, post 109. A lot of the calories you eat are not digested to the extent where they enter the bloodstream and are carried on to be burned in the cells. You excrete them undigested.
3) And that doesn't only go for calories/energy. It's the reason why sunflower seeds are not as dangerous as it was assumed at first when their contents of nickel and cadmium were discovered. Most of the sunflower seeds pass through your bowels undigested and end of being consumed by sewer rats.
4) It's possible to get obese in spite of always eating too little to feel full. Feel free to think that the people who are getting obese this way are still eating too much. The science of nutrition has moved on since most people thought this way.
5) Obesity and poverty. But who cares, right?! We all know that those poor people always overindulge ...
6) As mentioned above, recreation. What used to be too much suddenly isn't if children get access to proper recreational facilities.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 27th May 2018 at 12:31 PM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 03:06 AM   #116
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,831
"Too much":

Quote:
Widespread obesity is concentrated in countries with relatively high levels of economic inequality. For example, obesity is more common in the unequal US than it is in Japan or Switzerland, even though fatty foods are easy to come by in all three nations. Within countries, obesity is most common among poor people. The problem is that the mismatch idea predicts the opposite pattern. The financially better off should be the most able to satisfy their “caveman” desires and so become fattest. But the reverse is true. Poverty and obesity go together.
Unreliable food supplies, rather than too much food, may lead to obesity (The Conversation, Jun. 5, 2017)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 06:58 AM   #117
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,831
Quote:
Nyhed fra den årlige europæiske fedme konferense (ECO):
Vægttab får type 2 diabetes til at gå væk
Svært overvægtige (BMI>30) type 2 diabetikere diagnostiseret indenfor de seneste 6 år vil i 86% af alle tilfælde ikke længere være type 2 diabetiker efter 1 år hvis det lykkedes dem at tabe 15 kg eller mere. Hertil kommer alle de andre helbredsforbedringer som følger med.
Det vil altså være op mod 9 ud af 10 som her vil kunne få diagnosen til at gå væk med kosten alene.
Ved tab på mellem 5-10 kg er det 34% og ved tab på 10-15 kg er det 57%.
Blodsukkerkuren.dk kan hjælpe med dette vægttab.
Gluco-Diet

"News from the annual European Conference on Obesity (ECO)
Weight loss makes type 2 diabetes disappear
In 86 % of all cases, obese (BMI>30 )type-2 diabetics diagnosed in the last six years will no longer be type-2 diabetics after one year if they succeed in losing 15 kilos or more. In addition to this, there are all the other health benefits that the weight loss entails. So close to 9 out of ten will be able to make the diabetes type-2 diagnosis disappear solely by dieting.
At weight loss of less than 5-10 kilos, it's 34%, and at weight loss of 10-15 kilos, it's 57%.
The blood-sugar diet helps achieve this weight loss."
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 09:22 AM   #118
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 25,269
Originally Posted by dann View Post
5) Obesity and poverty. But who cares, right?! We all know that those poor people always overindulge ...
I don't know, the article/opinion piece doesn't address caloric intake directly but it does repeatedly hint that poor people are eating the wrong kinds of things, not that they're not getting enough calories and magically that being poor increased their risk of obesity.

Quote:
So what are the factors that push poorer people towards unhealthy eating? Food and health policy expert Martin Caraher has explained that food choices are massively influenced by factors such as income, knowledge and skills. Others have highlighted the fact that eating well invariably involves more food preparation time.
Cheap food which is easy to prepare and which is readily accessible in the United States (which is where the article focuses) tends to be calorie dense and nutrition poor.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2018, 01:03 PM   #119
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,831
But notice the article I quote from in post 116: "obesity is more common in the unequal US than it is in Japan or Switzerland, even though fatty foods are easy to come by in all three nations."
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2018, 01:29 AM   #120
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,831
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I don't know, the article/opinion piece doesn't address caloric intake directly but it does repeatedly hint that poor people are eating the wrong kinds of things, not that they're not getting enough calories and magically that being poor increased their risk of obesity.

That claim would also be absurd. However, one of the articles says that: Unreliable food supplies, rather than too much food, may lead to obesity:

Quote:
The constellation of historically unprecedented availability of high calorie foods in a society, combined with periodic food scarcity among its poorest, helps account for contemporary patterns of obesity. Such a synthesis makes sense of why widespread obesity is an epidemic of affluent countries, but particularly of affluent countries with high levels of inequality or economic insecurity.
(...)
Attempts to combat obesity by dieting, public health messages or food labelling, may prove no match for our evolved weight-regulating mechanisms in the face of food insecurity. It might be wiser to shift our focus on global obesity away from people’s eating decisions and onto society’s inequalities over reliable access to food.

The interesting thing here is that poor people don't simply 'eat too much.' The article tries to explain the mechanism that makes them eat to the point of obesity - and sometimes diabetes type 2.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:28 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.