Very cool, if true

Well yes, that's part of the question - do we say "Right you lot, stop eating sugary foods!" or do we say "carry on eating sugary foods, just take a pill once a day too"

I believe America has just under 17 million of people with type 2 diabetes.

More info here: http://www.obgyn.net/newsheadlines/headline_medical_news-Type_2_Diabetes-20021223-9.asp

From:

"stop eating sugary foods or stop whinging!" of course. It's not just sugar, though that's a nasty problem. Being fat makes you more insulin resistant (which makes you more fat). I saw a great site of some 300+lb bloke who got thin and whose diabetes then went away.

Just as well I'm not in a job where sympathy is required :-)

Having a condition that can be controlled by diet I know how damn hard it it can be to go against the fast/junk food vein. I AM getting back to seriously folllowing it - I just need to quit drinking!

From:

But _why_ do you think people should take the hard work route rather than the "simple tool to fix your problems" route?

Surely as a coder you're in favour of skipping the hard work in favouir of havign the tech do it for you?

From:

I am advocating the simpler option. Simpler in that it directly addresses the cause rather than plasterign over (possibly only the most obvious) symptoms.

From:

tisme.livejournal.com

The problem with eating sweet things is that they raise blood glucose levels, which has various bad effects. Break that connection and you get the good (sweeties!) without the bad.

Likewise - why pump chemicals into your body and alter yor hormone balance is badly understood ways when you could just avoid having sex if you didn't want kids?

From:

I suppose that I don't see that sweeties are good. They are defintely bad for your teeth. I don't like sweet stuff generally anyway. I suppose it might be harder to give them up if you liked them.

Pregnancy/child birth is a huge issue, not just physically but more importantly, economically.

I don't do hormonal contraception any more anyway. If there were no options for contraception at all, yes I would avoid sex (Probably easier for me to say at 31 than at 16!). If I had had the information at 16 that I have now, I may never have started with any of it, but even so, compared to the pure horror of having kids, any effects from contraception have been totally minor.

I strongly believe that women need some way of avoiding pregnacy that is under their control and can (as is sadly necessary in many parts of the world) be done without their partner knowing.

From:

I don't do hormonal contraception any more anyway.

When did that happen? Last time I checked you were regularly having needles stuck in you...

From:

I found out it stops bone accumulation (v. important). They didn't even know this 10 years ago. The bloody nurse didn't know it when I asked last year.

I'm pissed off, but there is nothing that I can do. Their anwser is that 9-10 yrs is Ok (like they actually have a clue , but no more). Depression (even one episode) is a big factor in osteoporosis too. guess i'm doomed.

From:

Ouchie. Now, is this a result of that hormone specifically, or down to the fact that it's injected, or what?

I'm pretty much set on-course for a vasectomy at the moment, as the simplest form of comtraception for those that really don't want a kid. I just have to get my arse in gear.

From:

Down to what it is, as far as I can tell.

I wish more men thought like you! There are possible side-effects to vascetomy - do do the reading first!

Shame it's a general anaesthetic and cutting into the abdominal wall etc. or I'd consider sterilisation myself.

From:

I haven't looked at this thread in a while, and would just like to address this point, specifically the notion that behavioural adaptation, such as adopting a healthier diet, is 'hard work', with an example from my own case.
When I was 14, I decided to adopt a vegetarian diet. This was annoying to my parents, but there was very little they could do about it. For me, it was effortless. Okay, granted, I didn't really like to eat as a teenager, but this was an extremely easy decision to put into practise. Within weeks, I stopped perceiving meat as food. I'd be hungry, go to the kitchen, see some meat in the fridge, and it wouldn't register, and I'd have oatmeal. Some years later, I got very ill, and after a long time being ill, my stomach capacity had shrunk to about six ounces. Once I started getting better, I was interested in maximally nutritious foods that would do for me, espacially as I'd dropped a ridiculous amount of weight and really needed to address that. As by this time I was pretty much in total control over what I ate and lived in a place where I could have been a vegan macrobiotic without too much extra effort, this wasn't hard. In a very short space of time, my diet consisted primarily of olive oil, brown rice, amaranth, miso, adzuki and pinto beans, seaweeds, tinned tomatoes, and whatever fresh fruit and veg were in season. I couldn't afford supermarket organic, but bought things from the local farmers' market whenever I could.
I ate no refined sugar or carbohydrates, and the reason for this was not ideological, but that I couldn't stand them. Once I was well again, there was no reason why I shouldn't occasionally eat this stuff, but my body didn't (still doesn't) like refined foods, and my tastes had adapted to match. Maybe necessity drove me to this, but I have to look back on the transition from a happy hotdog devourer to a fairly strict veg-- really, quite painless, and I suspect it would have been the same for the other dietary change.
I don't think my experience is unique. Lots of people, once they start eating healthier, find that they both feel better and no longer like worthless food. Lots of people, if they get regular exercise, find that they feel better, sleep better, and they feel wrong if they don't get at least a wee walk in a day. Behavioural adaptation is not necessarily *work*. It may be hard at first, but if successful, the change can for many be permanent, maintenance effortless.
Just a thought.

From:

I'll happily agree that once you get yourself moved over it's not a problem at all.

Can I ask how much fun you find most food? Do you look forward to anything in the same way you used to think "Mmmmm, Doughnut..."?

From:

Oh, yeah. Food. Food good.
Mmmmmm. Sushi. Mmmmmmmmmm. Well, I guess that's kinda normal...

From:

Sushi is vegetarian???

From:

Can be. Cucumber maki wasabi bombs are about the best thing in the world.
Anyway, I'm not vegetarian anymore... I'm arather sad about that, but I couldn't get the kind of stuff I was used to eating in Vermont once I moved here and my digestion freaked out again. It's easier in a lot of ways too because my husband doesn't like most vegetables. I reserve my aubergine and brussels sprout dinners for his developer's meeting nights. ;)

From:

But brussel sprouts rock! It's just that most people are introduced to them in "boiled-into-mush" form.

I do, by the way, currently try to eat well, avoid sugary food, etc.

But if they come up with a pill that will allow me to snack on doughnuts and chocolate, I'll be there like a shot.

From:

I know! They totally rock!
Well, I think you can be forgiven your doghnut and chocolate fetish if I can be forgiven my cheese one. Cheeeeeeeeeeeeese. Yum.

From:

Aw, now you've got me thinking about grilled aubergines, and I'm going to have to go out and get an aubergine and grill it. ;)

From:

I have heard a doctor complain that he really does want to be able to tell people that they feel like crap because they eat crap, are overweight, and don't get any exercise, but of course, that'ss not what they want to hear. They want to hear 'You have XYZ syndrome. Here, take this pill. It will make you thin and happy'. I think a lot of this is down to laziness, and a lot of it is down to people wanting things not to be going right with them because there's something wrong with them, not because of some way that they behave, which they could change if they wanted to badly enough, or, in other words, that it's their fault.
Of course, for some people, there is actually something wrong, and if these people would benefit from being given medication, they should get medication, but as for the rest of us...
I think that it's a rather dangerous precedent, all of this self-medicating. It promotes the understanding that we are somehow not responsible, by the way we live our lives, the kinds of things we choose to put into our bodies, for the condition in which our bodies are, but that if we're fat and unheathly it's because there's something wrong with us and medical science can fix it. Even if it is explicitly understood that what we're doing when we self-medicate to alleviate symptoms that are directly caused by choices that we make, it encourages complacency. It probably isn't physically very healthy, as well. Further, it reduces the body's ability to adapt to new things if you're dependent upon all these drugs just to keep yourself in operating condition.
I don't think it's terribly wise to force the body to function in ways and on stuff it hasn't evolved to do. Millions of years went into turning us into the kinds of physical beings we are. In the long run, even if self-medication makes us feel like we're doing okay on high sugar, high refined carbohydrate, high fat diets, we're probably not, and certainly not as well as we would be if we were eating the kind of stuff our bodies really want.
And at worst we end up like Michael Jackson.
*shudder*

From:

When I first got glasses that reacted to the light a friend of mine told me that he'd never wear glasses like that, because your own eyes would stop adjusting to the light when they got used to the glasses adjusting for them.

I replied that this wouldn't be a problem because now I had reactalite glasses I wouldn't have to depend on my eyes reacting by themselves any more.

And yes, this can be a dangerous attitude. And yes, taking this to the bleeding edge of technology will undoubtably go wrong once in a while. But as we slide slowly into a posthuman future, I think that it's necessary for some people to be out in front and I'd like it to be a choice that people make, to mess with their bodies or not.

From:

I think that it's a rather dangerous precedent, all of this self-medicating. It promotes the understanding that we are somehow not responsible, by the way we live our lives, the kinds of things we choose to put into our bodies, for the condition in which our bodies are, but that if we're fat and unheathly it's because there's something wrong with us and medical science can fix it. Even if it is explicitly understood that what we're doing when we self-medicate to alleviate symptoms that are directly caused by choices that we make, it encourages complacency. It probably isn't physically very healthy, as well. Further, it reduces the body's ability to adapt to new things if you're dependent upon all these drugs just to keep yourself in operating condition.

The growing range of drugs we have access to are actually allowing people to have far greater control over their bodies. One could easily make your argument about contraceptives or anti-depressants. Why should we be at the mercy of our bodies whims, regardless of whether those whims are getting ill from eating a certain type of diet or getting pregnant from having a certain type of sex? Much of human technology has been about learning how to modify our external environment, and it seems fairly obvious that artificial lighting, running water and indoor heat and ir conditioning are all positive changes we have made to our environment. I see nothing wrong with applying the same changes to our internal environment (ie our bodies).

From:

Hi, cleodhna.

Firstly, I though that was a well thought out comment. You make some good points.

I have to be bluntly honest, we seem to be able to explain away any physical or mental aspect of our beings with a medical diagnosis these days. Whatever it is that's wrong with us, or we 'feel' is wrong with us, can be attributed to an illness. I'm not entirely sure I accept, agree, or like that. Sometimes, I do't think we accept enough responsibility for ourselves.

I'm slightly overweight. There's feck-all wrong with me, other than I don't exercise enough. It's called lazy-itis. It's curable - I can get off my butt and stop being such a lazy ass. I also have shit skin, which is far too greasy and prone to acne. I could get medication for this, but my personal choice is to try and eat a diet which keeps my skin as clear as possible. More on that in a bit.

That said, I do accept there are a lot of physical, and mental, illnesses that can directly affect the way we look and behave. Obesity itself isn't an illness, and as far as I'm aware, it isn't the sole symptom of any illness either. It can be a symptom, along with other things, of many illnesses. That's a crucial difference.

I'll never condone self-medication. For several reasons.

One: I would always worry about becoming reliant on the medication. Using it as a crutch. If you are ill, and it's being treated with prescription drugs - that's a science. If you're not a doctor, how can you possibly understand it, and know what's best? how do you know when you no longer need the meds? How do you monitor their effect? Think placebos, folks. Just popping a pill affects us, regardless of what's in it. Self-medication means you take something, and be sure it's having all positive effects, and never realise it's not.

Two: Further, it reduces the body's ability to adapt to new things if you're dependent upon all these drugs just to keep yourself in operating condition. Couldn't put it better myself. I'm a firm believer in taking as few drugs as possible. Everything we ingest, whether food, meds or other, has an impact on our physical self. Taking drugs to alleviate headaches, or combat poor skin (see, told you I'd come back to it), makes our bodies less capable of defeating these things by itself. IMHO, a strong mental attitude to becoming healthier is often better than reaching for the pill bottle as soon as something is wrong. That's often folks, not always. I'd never want someone to really suffer - some meds are more necessary than others.

Three: Genetics. I'm not convinced that, as a race, we do ourselves much good by increasingly becoming dependent on meds to alleviate all our aches and pains. I realise we're talking millenia here, but we're never going to develop our immune systems further if we continue to look to medication to solve every little illness we have.

For these reasons, self-medication seems to me to be a bad thing. Any and all meds should be prescribed by a doctor. I'm not even going to go into how reliable or qualified they are, though - that's a separate argument. The simple truth is, we're not responsible to self-med. Too many people, for too many things, would be too quick to reach for a drug solution to an otherwise solvable issue, be it over-eating, bad skin or whatever.

From:

As some of you know, Erin has PCOS. The solution to this is to basically give her drugs that return her body to normal levels of insulin/glucose so that her testosterone levels drop and she's normal again.

A friend of mine has this and has had bad luck with the drugs she was given. What is Erin taking? If it works, I'd like to tell me friend about it.

More to the point, lets extend that to a general level. We're gaining more and more control over our bodies and brains. Are we going to take control of our bodies on a deep invasive level (eventually redefining what it means to be human) or are we going to decide that only certain changes are to be allowed?

To me the only fair and reasonable answer to this question is to allow anyone to make whatever changes they wish with their own body. I can see the government (in civilized nations that actually have reasonable healthcare) only paying for treatments that improve the person's health, but any changes should be allowed.

I've seen some fascinating bodymods recently, one person in Portland has under-skin implants that are a pair of narrow rods that extend in a V from the inside edge of his eyebrows to the top outside edge of his forehead - he looks rather like a Star Trek alien. From my POV, increased physical and mental diversity is always a good thing as long as people are happy with the changes they make to their bodies.

From:

OK, LJ is FUCKING EVIL. I just wrote a huge reply to this, not realising there's a character length restriction, and when it sends me back to alter it, all the text is gone! FUCK ME! Boy, am I mad.

From:

Trying again - this time I'll take heron61 first, then cleodhna.

Heron, you think any changes should be permitted, whether illness-driven or otherwise, presumably, as long as the individual is happy. What about the effects of mental illness?

You are effectively saying anorexia is OK. Bearing in mind this is now a medically recognised mental disorder, which I have had personal experience of. It's not pretty. It is, in fact, life-threatening. However, according to your argument, people should be able to starve themselves thin, as long as they are happy with the way they look. Dumb. Fucking dumb.

We're far too ready as a society, especially in the "anything goes" 21st century, to accept anything without question. If anoerxia (which is, at it's core, an unhealthy desire to change one's appearance) exists, and was only relatively recently medically accepted, who's to say there are not other mental illnesses of a similar nature which are not yet recognised?

We're obsessed with how we look. All human beings are - even the most remote tribes wear jewellry, piercings and tattoos. But these are just 'decoration'. Decoration, or "plumage", is understandable. We all want to make ourselves look good, whether it's with the clothes we wear, or makeup, or jewellry, or whatever. But that's as far as it should go. When we start to desire to actually alter ourselves physically, or, perhaps more accurately, feel a 'need' to do that, we have to start questioning why.

Bodymods. What a fucking disgusting term. Heron, are you aware there are people out there who have limbs amputated to be happy with themselves? Is this acceptable? At which point does this desire from change become questionable? At which point to we start to consider why the desire is there in the first place, instead of just allowing it to be?

This really angers me. The first thing we should be considering is tolerance, acceptance. We're obsessed with how we look, and how everyone else looks too. We're happy to mock other peoples appearances, regardless of the damage it does. WHY do people want to change themselves? And why should it be OK? Is it not far preferable that people can accept themselves for who they are, and be accepted for who they are too? Yes, this applies equally after any 'mods' - but why bother with the mods in the first place?

Take Michael Jackson as an extreme, but very good, example. Does anyone not think he has mental problems? Does anyone here not pity him? Anyone? Hello? And look at the changes he ahs made. The two aren't separate - they are directly related. The problems with his family, the childhood that none of us can imagine - these have resulted in his mental state, which has affected the way he views himself. He's clearly an individual deeply unhappy with himself, and has felt the need to drastically alter his physicl appearance. Surely, Heron, you recognise it would have been far better if he'd been able to deal with the mental problems, than to be where he is now. In fact, I'd argue that despite the changes he's made, he still isn't happy, and probably never will be. Hardly 'healthy'.

From:

You are effectively saying anorexia is OK. Bearing in mind this is now a medically recognised mental disorder, which I have had personal experience of. It's not pretty. It is, in fact, life-threatening. However, according to your argument, people should be able to starve themselves thin, as long as they are happy with the way they look. Dumb. Fucking dumb.

What other moral option is there? If someone wants help to stop being anorexic, then I heartily agree that they should have access to free and effective treatment. However, what about people who don't want to stop. Should jack-booted normality police haul them in and force treatment on them? How likely do you think that would be to work? I believe that anorexia is a very bad choice of lifestyle, but it is a choice and forcibly attempting to take away people's choices is IMHO immoral and also typically ineffective.

We're obsessed with how we look. All human beings are - even the most remote tribes wear jewellry, piercings and tattoos. But these are just 'decoration'. Decoration, or "plumage", is understandable. We all want to make ourselves look good, whether it's with the clothes we wear, or makeup, or jewellry, or whatever. But that's as far as it should go.

Why? Because these sort of changes don't bother you and others do? What right do you have to dictate other's actions?

I would also like to have a social climate where anorexia was less common, but I firmly believe that the most effective way to do this is to increase diversity - it is is acceptable for people to look like whatever they want then I'm guessing that the barbie/supermodel look that most anorexics seek to emulate will become less popular. We have rigid standards of what is acceptable and attractive. People into body modification challenge those standards and will hopefully expand them, if they are not stopped by people like you who hold rigid views about acceptable appearance.

Bodymods. What a fucking disgusting term. Heron, are you aware there are people out there who have limbs amputated to be happy with themselves? Is this acceptable?

Yes, who are you to say that their choices are right or wrong?

From:

(Couldn't fit everything into one comment!)

increased physical and mental diversity is always a good thing as long as people are happy with the changes they make to their bodies.

I'm sorry, but bullshit. I admit, some people are perfectly comfortable with themselves, and seek changes anyway. But I bet they are few and far between. Don't tell me that people, in general, only consider their appearance for themselves. That's a crock of shit, and everyone knows it. We all want to look good for other people. It's built into us. I admit, a very, very few people will probably be completely happy with themselves, and still seek to alter themselves in some way. And some people won't be happy with themselves, and will seek change purely for themselves. I still suspect the majority of people don't fall into either of those categories.

What we need to do, is promote tolerance and understanding of people as they are, regardless of height, size, colour, condition or anything else. I hate people that judge others solely on their appearance - that can see someone walking down the street and comment on them, without ever knowing them? What gives anyone the right to do that? I certainly don't tolerate it with my friends, and nobody else should. I'm willing to bet, if we could learn to be happy with everyone and accept people as they are, without question, this desire for extreme change, to physically alter our own beings, would be nowhere near as evident as it is today.

From:

I'm willing to bet, if we could learn to be happy with everyone and accept people as they are, without question, this desire for extreme change, to physically alter our own beings, would be nowhere near as evident as it is today.

I'm close friends with several transsexuals and they get lines like that a lot. I don't buy that sort of logic for transsexuals and I don't buy it for other people either. More tolerance would be wonderful, but for many people the desire for body modification is largely internal. As soon as I get paid for the large writing project I did last year, I will be getting a tattoo, because I value the symbol and what it means to me. I'll enjoy showing others, but they aren't the point, I am. This is true for a great deal of body modification. Some people need to do it to be happy (like transsexuals) others simply wish to do it. Are tattoos wrong or dubious in your eyes? How about ear piercing or having oneself sterilized? If those mods are OK, then why are others not?

Also, what's wrong with changing yourself to appear more attractive? People have been doing this in all manner of ways since at least the neolithic. More tolerance might reduce the amount of some changes, but included in this tolerance I would hoe would also be a greater acceptance of how people wish to change themselves.

Also, the majority of the more extreme changes are most certainly not done to be more acceptable, no one implants horns on their head or cuts off their arm to be more acceptable by mainstream society.

From:

Hey.

Firstly, genuine transsexuals definitely fall into my "I admit, some people are perfectly comfortable with themselves, and seek changes anyway." category. I fully accept that there are some people who have purely internal reasons for seeking change, and that it has nothing to do with their environment and/or the people they know.

You have to balance that, by admitting that a lot of people seek to change themselves not purely for themselves, but to respond to pressures from external sources. I don't actually believe that will lead to them being any happier anyway, and I certainly don't believe it to be right. IMHO, which is just my opinion, admittedly, it is far healthier to fully accept yourself as you are. In fact, I'd argue that the only people who should alter themselves should be those who can and do accept themselves fully for who they are. I think, am I right, that transsexuals would fall into that category?

Also, and I guess we're just going to disagree on this, I think it's ignorant to ignore the effects that mental illness can have on someone. I don't think it's in anyway right to say anorexia is a personal choice - good luck to them. It's an illness, just as a cold or Aids is an illness. It's not a choice - there are no recovered anorexians (did I just make up a word?) that are not glad they have recovered - just as anyone who recovered from a cold or Aids (hey, I can dream) would be glad. You are very, very wrong to describe it as a choice. it's exactly the opposite of that. And the point I was trying to make with regards to that was, if anorexia is the removal of that choice, then who is to say that other extreme body-mods aren't the result of a similar illness? You have to concede the argument. There's a difference between freedom of choice, and being ill.

Lastly, you seem to think I'm intolerant of people who look 'different'. Again, I think you miss my point. I will never judge someone for how they look - I don't profess, however, to understand why some people choose to physically do some of the things they do to themselves. There's a marked difference there. I equally will never understand people who eat olives, as they are the food of the devil, but I won't judge them for it. Trite, yes, but I hope you see my point. I don't judge people who treat their bodies in a perceived 'extreme' manner, or claim they are 'wrong'. I question why they want to do this in the first place. Genuinely - why? What drives it? Is it completely healthy, and individual, and innocent, or is it a reaction to environmental factors, or an illness? It IS an important question - far better to ask it, than just to accept everything without question.

From:

Taking the devil's advocate position:

Firstly, genuine transsexuals definitely fall into my "I admit, some people are perfectly comfortable with themselves, and seek changes anyway." category.

Nope, transexuals change gender because they are completely uncomfortable with themselves and want to change themselves to a form they are comfortable with.

You have to balance that, by admitting that a lot of people seek to change themselves not purely for themselves, but to respond to pressures from external sources.

Well, of course. But why is that bad? If I've made the decision to dye my hair pink, wear black and diet down to a skinny size, isn't that my decision?

. I don't think it's in anyway right to say anorexia is a personal choice - good luck to them. It's an illness, just as a cold or Aids is an illness.

Both the Cold and AIDS are caused by a virus infecting a person. They are diseases. Anorexia isn't caused by a virus or a bacteria. It's a mental state. Now, if you want to categorise certain mental states as 'unhealthy' or 'forbidden' go for it. But don't you think that's a bit Orwellian?

You seem to be basically saying "You can make certain choices, but if you choose things I think are bad for you, that's not a choice, it's a compulsion." Is that what you mean?

From:

I don't agree with your translation of transsexuality. Or rather, I think we're looking at the same thing in a different way. Transsexuals are mentally happy with who they are - they feel like a "man trapped in a woman's body", or vice versa, yeah? As in, they know what sex they feel like, their bodies just don't conform to that. When I say 'comfortable', I mean with who they are - mentally. They simply seek to change their physicality to match that.

You are talking about changing your hair, your clothes, and your diet. I've already said 'plumage' changes (I can't think of a better expression) are understandable. A part of who we are. We want to appeal to others. It's extreme changes, changes which can damage our health, or the removal of limbs etc, that I think are not boundary pushing, but something more sinister.

Regarding your 'Orwellian' point. Simply put - show me ONE, just ONE, person who has recovered from Anorexia and isn't happy about it, and I'll consider your argument. To complete deny the possibility of mental illness, and categorise everything as free-will, IMHO is absurd. Taking that to extremes, I guess things like rape, torture and murder are all completely understandable, and only unnacceptable because they impact on someone else?

I know, if I ever wanted to drastically change myself, by chopping limbs of or starving myself to death, I'd hope someone would help me. To counter that point though, I'd hope if I was dying of some horrible illness, and was in great amounts of pain, someone would allow me or help me to take my own life. None of this is black and white. I just don't think it's responsible t

From:

Simply put - show me ONE, just ONE, person who has recovered from Anorexia and isn't happy about it, and I'll consider your argument.

Show me one person who has recovered from being a tory and isn't happy about it and I'll consider yours. When people change from one way of thinking to another, they always reject their old thinking and embrace the new.

To complete deny the possibility of mental illness, and categorise everything as free-will, IMHO is absurd.

Actually, I agree. It's a question of drawing lines, who gets to draw them and the method used. I don't trust other people to draw my lines, generally speaking.

I guess things like rape, torture and murder are all completely understandable, and only unnacceptable because they impact on someone else?
Of course! These things are completely commonplace throughout human history and can't be defined as mental abberations. Ordinary common people have got caught up in all of them on a fairly constant basis.

From:

metformin is the drug. It's a glucophage, which means it increases the insulin sensitivity, meaning you don't have the massive swings you would otherwise have.

From: