Apple working on breakthrough glucose sensors for Apple Watch, report says

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 79
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 585member
    davestall said:
    Super Secret?   Wow So secret Appleinsider knows about it.   Not very secret.

    Apple and about 12 other high tech companies are working on this because these is a huge pot of money at the end for whoever does it.   It is well known that Google is working on contact lenses that measure glucose continuously and mini transmit to a phone or watch.

    Kuddos to whoever come up with something practical first.  Doubtful it will be apple based on the record of original thoughts recently.
    Didn't we hear rumors about blood pressure monitoring a year ago.

    Not believing this.
  • Reply 62 of 79
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 29,087member
    ireland said:
    ireland said:
    for consideration (forks over knives): www.youtube.com/watch?v=g__LROraYY8
    Tl;dw

    Eat less meat or quit meat and you'll be healthier. More than 5% protein in your diet is bad news. It's a pretty convincing documentary and backs up other information we're learning these days.

    Repressed anger is also huge for disease—results in excessive stress for sometimes decades-long durations, which the body does not handle well.

    We'll get there. Give us 100 years. We're still in the dark ages with presidents with obvious daddy issues. 
    Meat and protein are two different things. Most everyone benefits from additional protein, in numerous ways. The essential amino acids are used for building and repairing the body. High protein assists in muscle retention and burning fat, which nearly all of us could use.
    Yes, meat and protein are two different things, I'll give you that. But above 5% protein in your diet is still unhealthy, according to the conclusions of the professors in this documentary—who independently came to the same thinking on the matter. It probably goes back to how we evolved. Only now do we have so much excess of everything. Moderation is key.
    As someone with a masters in bio, and who remains a member of several scientific bodies, I can tell You that much of what that movie said is full of crap. The people who did that had their prejudices, and pushed them forwards with that film. It like the China study itself, which I've read. There's so much wrong with it, and it's been criticized on so many fronts.

    that 5% is nonsense.
  • Reply 63 of 79
    ireland said:
    Lets wait and see. This is something where there's a huge difference between doing research and shipping a fully regulated product with such important medical functionality. It's not news in the sense that it was already commonly understood Apple were interested in this. Let's wait until something ships before becoming aroused by the possibilities.
    To be viable it, likely, would require reducing/eliminating health regulations -- and tort reform.

  • Reply 64 of 79
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 29,087member


    ireland said:
    for consideration (forks over knives): www.youtube.com/watch?v=g__LROraYY8
    Tl;dw

    Eat less meat or quit meat and you'll be healthier. More than 5% protein in your diet is bad news. It's a pretty convincing documentary and backs up other information we're learning these days.

    Repressed anger is also huge for disease—results in excessive stress for sometimes decades-long durations, which the body does not handle well.

    We'll get there. Give us 100 years. We're still in the dark ages with presidents with obvious daddy issues. 
    We are with food where we were in the 60's & 70's with smoking:   The science is there pointing to the cause of some of our deadliest and most debilitating diseases, but the industry that profits from that cause is doing their best to suppress or muddy the waters around that science.  Just like the tobacco companies before them, Big-Food does not want the public to realize that they are selling them toxic substances.
    "sugar is just empty calories"
    "moderation"
    "You need calcium from milk for strong bones"
    "eggs are one of nature's perfect foods"
    "Meat supplies the protein you need to be strong"
    Ah, the egg conspiracy. Eggs are fine. For most people dietary cholesterol is fine and doesn't affect blood cholesterol. 
    That's true!   (If you believe the egg industry!)  Actually eggs are not only high in saturated fats and cholesterol (both of which the USDA says to restrict or avoid) but they also promote TMAO which is closely associated with heart disease.   Other than that, they're perfect!  Well, perfect except for being associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer... 
    eggs are extremely healthy. I eat two every day. There is absolutely no evidence that cholesterol in the diet translates out to numbers in the blood. I've been saying that for decades, and finally some years ago two very large, long term studies showed that to be true.
    gatorguyfastasleep
  • Reply 65 of 79
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 29,087member

    melgross said:
    ivanh said:
    It's all about a tiny sensor. When it's invented, Apple or Samsung uses it, integrate it and write codes for it.  If this kind of sensor has been there, at least one "real" Glucose Level monitor should be using it without a smartphone. Have you ever seen Apple makes even one electronic component in the past?
    There's nothing wrong with the theory here. The medical industry has been working on it. There are sensors that do work, but they've got to be individually calibrated to the person. So it's certainly not impossible.

    apple designs entire machines to manufacture parts for their equipment. I'm sure they could tackle a sensor. And as you know, Apple designs rather sophisticated chips, some from scratch, and they've been doing that for decades.

    A friend of mine just retired. He was an expert in biological sensor design. In fact, as he used to say, he was the only expert in his particular field, as he was the only one designing those particular sensors. And yes, he has a doctorate in microbiology and bioelectronics. We've spoken about this over the years, and he believes it's possible. They need to solve the problem of different skin types, hair, tattoos, freckles, etc. One reason why Apple was supposedly reluctant to get into actual medical device manufacture, which is what this would now become, is that regulations are stiff, and Apple understands that if it isn't consistent, it isn't useful.

    a solution would be to have the readings confirmed by a blood test, the way those tests are normally performed. That is, you don't eat for a specified time to get a base level, and then adjust the Watch reading to match that tested level. But will people want to have a blood test to have it working properly? That's a major problem, and one that Apple is likely wrestling with.
    I'm thinking that that is a moot question -- because the physician will demand a blood test anyway for anybody at risk for diabetes (which these days is pretty much everybody old enough to vote).

    But, to be honest, I don't have a lot of confidence in a watch based monitor like Apple's heart rate monitor.  I think Google & others have a better chance testing tears (via contact lenses) or sweat via a patch of some sort -- because, like blood, that's where the substance being tested resides.   But, I know better than to bet against Apple.
    Apple's heart rate monitor has been shown,  numerous times, to be about as accurate as the chest mounted monitors, which are very accurate. Yes, if you look at those on Samsung phones, they're crap. Few Android smart watches have them, but for those that do, well, they're also crap. But Apple's has been shown to be within 5% of a professional diagnostic tool. That's more than good enough.

    if Apple could get other sensors to that accuracy, they would be fine for the purpose. Even blood tests aren't always that accurate.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 66 of 79
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 29,087member
    joe28753 said:
    As I understand it, by monitoring how glucose levels rise and fall, you can actually calculate how much food is being eaten, and possibly even calculate down to the macronutrient level. How much carbs, protein, fat.. If they get that worked out, a glucose sensor would be awesome to have for everybody. The watch knows how many calories you're burning based on activity, heart rate, age, weight etc, then based on glucose levels, figure out how many calories are going in and tell you what your net for the day is.
    Actually, diabetes is NOT the result of eating too many carbs -- it is caused by insulin resistance (your body's inability to process carbs).   So, the levels of glucose rise and fall and fall has more to do with the animal fat you eat or wear than the carbs you eat.
    Yes, that's true. But it's also been shown that your diet can reset you brain into thinking that you're eating in ways that you're not, hence why it's so difficult for grossly overweight people to lose weight, even when eating less. That whole mechanism needs to be reset. It's very difficult. And gaining weight from too many carbs, or anything else, no matter where they're from, can lead to type II diabetes. That's also shown to be true. In fact, obesity is a leading indicator for diabetes.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 67 of 79
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 29,087member

    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:

    ireland said:
    for consideration (forks over knives): www.youtube.com/watch?v=g__LROraYY8
    Tl;dw

    Eat less meat or quit meat and you'll be healthier. More than 5% protein in your diet is bad news. It's a pretty convincing documentary and backs up other information we're learning these days.

    Repressed anger is also huge for disease—results in excessive stress for sometimes decades-long durations, which the body does not handle well.

    We'll get there. Give us 100 years. We're still in the dark ages with presidents with obvious daddy issues. 
    We are with food where we were in the 60's & 70's with smoking:   The science is there pointing to the cause of some of our deadliest and most debilitating diseases, but the industry that profits from that cause is doing their best to suppress or muddy the waters around that science.  Just like the tobacco companies before them, Big-Food does not want the public to realize that they are selling them toxic substances.
    "sugar is just empty calories"
    "moderation"
    "You need calcium from milk for strong bones"
    "eggs are one of nature's perfect foods"
    "Meat supplies the protein you need to be strong"
    Ah, the egg conspiracy. Eggs are fine. For most people dietary cholesterol is fine and doesn't affect blood cholesterol. 
    That's true!   (If you believe the egg industry!)  Actually eggs are not only high in saturated fats and cholesterol (both of which the USDA says to restrict or avoid) but they also promote TMAO which is closely associated with heart disease.   Other than that, they're perfect!  Well, perfect except for being associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer... 
    Cholesterol isn't a problem and a lot of recent research appears to support that idea. Sugar is a huge problem and always has been. The difference is there was never a 'fat' lobby to protect it. The sugar lobby has done a great job of protecting the industry but is feeling the heat now.
    Yeh, that's the smoke screen put out by the meat and dairy industries:  blame sugar.    The truth is:  saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, TMAO and refined carbs like sugar are all bad for you.   It's not either/or...
    What I meant was that cholesterol is absolutely necessary and people have been eating saturated fats for a long time. 

    Trans fats, excess sugar, overly refined products, unbalanced diets etc are relatively new things and we are seeing the consequences. I'm simplifying of course, as a sedentary lifestyle will also lead to problems but cholesterol very probably isn't one of them whereas added sugar definitely is.

    We know exactly what white refined sugar does to us and it isn't nice. We also know that trans fats only have commercial advantages and are very damaging to health. Ditto palm oil etc.

    Saying eggs are bad because of cholesterol doesn't ring to well with recent research from many studies that say cholesterol probably isn't a big factor in heart disease.

    Of course, if your cholesterol hits a certain number, your doctor will ask you to change your diet and take medication. Something that probably isn't very good for you. But that's another story.
    We also know now, that excess sugar, from any source, is worse than animal fat. Of course, this depends on actual intake. But animal fat isn't always bad. Evolutionarily, we've come very late to grains, where people get much of their carbs from. We don't digest grains as well as we should. Indeed, we know that these breads with grains throughout are bad for digestion, as they limit intake of nutrients from the rest of the meal.
  • Reply 68 of 79
    irelandireland Posts: 16,530member
    melgross said:
    ireland said:
    ireland said:
    for consideration (forks over knives): www.youtube.com/watch?v=g__LROraYY8
    Tl;dw

    Eat less meat or quit meat and you'll be healthier. More than 5% protein in your diet is bad news. It's a pretty convincing documentary and backs up other information we're learning these days.

    Repressed anger is also huge for disease—results in excessive stress for sometimes decades-long durations, which the body does not handle well.

    We'll get there. Give us 100 years. We're still in the dark ages with presidents with obvious daddy issues. 
    Meat and protein are two different things. Most everyone benefits from additional protein, in numerous ways. The essential amino acids are used for building and repairing the body. High protein assists in muscle retention and burning fat, which nearly all of us could use.
    Yes, meat and protein are two different things, I'll give you that. But above 5% protein in your diet is still unhealthy, according to the conclusions of the professors in this documentary—who independently came to the same thinking on the matter. It probably goes back to how we evolved. Only now do we have so much excess of everything. Moderation is key.
    As someone with a masters in bio, and who remains a member of several scientific bodies, I can tell You that much of what that movie said is full of crap. The people who did that had their prejudices, and pushed them forwards with that film. It like the China study itself, which I've read. There's so much wrong with it, and it's been criticized on so many fronts.

    that 5% is nonsense.
    The proof of the pudding's in the eating. Saying you've a masters in bio or that you're a member of several scientific bodies isn't an argument, btw. You're going to have to present an argument as to why you feel "much of what that movie said is full of crap". Hawking was wrong on black holes and information exchange arguing the information simply ceases to exist and goes nowhere and argued strongly all the while on the matter, for years, ignoring others on this until eventually he came around. Credentials, qualifications and bodies mean diddly squat. A good argument or point is where it counts. Tell us where it's wrong and make your point. Leave your credentials at the door. But whatever theories or ways of doing these doctors have it seems to be helping the people of ill health who took part.
    edited April 13
  • Reply 69 of 79
    irelandireland Posts: 16,530member

    melgross said:

    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:

    ireland said:
    for consideration (forks over knives): www.youtube.com/watch?v=g__LROraYY8
    Tl;dw

    Eat less meat or quit meat and you'll be healthier. More than 5% protein in your diet is bad news. It's a pretty convincing documentary and backs up other information we're learning these days.

    Repressed anger is also huge for disease—results in excessive stress for sometimes decades-long durations, which the body does not handle well.

    We'll get there. Give us 100 years. We're still in the dark ages with presidents with obvious daddy issues. 
    We are with food where we were in the 60's & 70's with smoking:   The science is there pointing to the cause of some of our deadliest and most debilitating diseases, but the industry that profits from that cause is doing their best to suppress or muddy the waters around that science.  Just like the tobacco companies before them, Big-Food does not want the public to realize that they are selling them toxic substances.
    "sugar is just empty calories"
    "moderation"
    "You need calcium from milk for strong bones"
    "eggs are one of nature's perfect foods"
    "Meat supplies the protein you need to be strong"
    Ah, the egg conspiracy. Eggs are fine. For most people dietary cholesterol is fine and doesn't affect blood cholesterol. 
    That's true!   (If you believe the egg industry!)  Actually eggs are not only high in saturated fats and cholesterol (both of which the USDA says to restrict or avoid) but they also promote TMAO which is closely associated with heart disease.   Other than that, they're perfect!  Well, perfect except for being associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer... 
    Cholesterol isn't a problem and a lot of recent research appears to support that idea. Sugar is a huge problem and always has been. The difference is there was never a 'fat' lobby to protect it. The sugar lobby has done a great job of protecting the industry but is feeling the heat now.
    Yeh, that's the smoke screen put out by the meat and dairy industries:  blame sugar.    The truth is:  saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, TMAO and refined carbs like sugar are all bad for you.   It's not either/or...
    What I meant was that cholesterol is absolutely necessary and people have been eating saturated fats for a long time. 

    Trans fats, excess sugar, overly refined products, unbalanced diets etc are relatively new things and we are seeing the consequences. I'm simplifying of course, as a sedentary lifestyle will also lead to problems but cholesterol very probably isn't one of them whereas added sugar definitely is.

    We know exactly what white refined sugar does to us and it isn't nice. We also know that trans fats only have commercial advantages and are very damaging to health. Ditto palm oil etc.

    Saying eggs are bad because of cholesterol doesn't ring to well with recent research from many studies that say cholesterol probably isn't a big factor in heart disease.

    Of course, if your cholesterol hits a certain number, your doctor will ask you to change your diet and take medication. Something that probably isn't very good for you. But that's another story.
    We also know now, that excess sugar, from any source, is worse than animal fat. Of course, this depends on actual intake. But animal fat isn't always bad. Evolutionarily, we've come very late to grains, where people get much of their carbs from. We don't digest grains as well as we should. Indeed, we know that these breads with grains throughout are bad for digestion, as they limit intake of nutrients from the rest of the meal.
    Agree. And fat intake helps instruct our body to produce the protein hormone leptin which affects metabolism, satiation, the feeling of fullness and other factors.
  • Reply 70 of 79
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:

    ireland said:
    for consideration (forks over knives): www.youtube.com/watch?v=g__LROraYY8
    Tl;dw

    Eat less meat or quit meat and you'll be healthier. More than 5% protein in your diet is bad news. It's a pretty convincing documentary and backs up other information we're learning these days.

    Repressed anger is also huge for disease—results in excessive stress for sometimes decades-long durations, which the body does not handle well.

    We'll get there. Give us 100 years. We're still in the dark ages with presidents with obvious daddy issues. 
    We are with food where we were in the 60's & 70's with smoking:   The science is there pointing to the cause of some of our deadliest and most debilitating diseases, but the industry that profits from that cause is doing their best to suppress or muddy the waters around that science.  Just like the tobacco companies before them, Big-Food does not want the public to realize that they are selling them toxic substances.
    "sugar is just empty calories"
    "moderation"
    "You need calcium from milk for strong bones"
    "eggs are one of nature's perfect foods"
    "Meat supplies the protein you need to be strong"
    Ah, the egg conspiracy. Eggs are fine. For most people dietary cholesterol is fine and doesn't affect blood cholesterol. 
    That's true!   (If you believe the egg industry!)  Actually eggs are not only high in saturated fats and cholesterol (both of which the USDA says to restrict or avoid) but they also promote TMAO which is closely associated with heart disease.   Other than that, they're perfect!  Well, perfect except for being associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer... 
    Cholesterol isn't a problem and a lot of recent research appears to support that idea. Sugar is a huge problem and always has been. The difference is there was never a 'fat' lobby to protect it. The sugar lobby has done a great job of protecting the industry but is feeling the heat now.
    Yeh, that's the smoke screen put out by the meat and dairy industries:  blame sugar.    The truth is:  saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, TMAO and refined carbs like sugar are all bad for you.   It's not either/or...
    What I meant was that cholesterol is absolutely necessary and people have been eating saturated fats for a long time. 

    Trans fats, excess sugar, overly refined products, unbalanced diets etc are relatively new things and we are seeing the consequences. I'm simplifying of course, as a sedentary lifestyle will also lead to problems but cholesterol very probably isn't one of them whereas added sugar definitely is.

    We know exactly what white refined sugar does to us and it isn't nice. We also know that trans fats only have commercial advantages and are very damaging to health. Ditto palm oil etc.

    Saying eggs are bad because of cholesterol doesn't ring to well with recent research from many studies that say cholesterol probably isn't a big factor in heart disease.

    Of course, if your cholesterol hits a certain number, your doctor will ask you to change your diet and take medication. Something that probably isn't very good for you. But that's another story.
    "cholesterol is absolutely necessary and people have been eating saturated fats for a long time. "
    Yeh, that's the smoke screen put by the meat and dairy industies....  

    Yes, our bodies do need cholesterol -- but the part industry seems to forget is that those same bodies make all that they need and strongly conserve it.   But today, we flood our bodies with dietary cholesterol and saturated fats which promote it.  So, we get an epidemic of heart disease and related maladies.  And, the science still says that the higher your cholesterol level, the higher your risk for cardiovascular diseases.

    "Saying eggs are bad because of cholesterol doesn't ring to well with recent research"
    The USDA has said to limit or eliminate saturated fats and dietary cholesterol -- both of which are prominent ingredients in eggs.  The meat and dairy industries lobbied hard to get rid of those warnings and for a while those industries were announcing that their products were now proclaimed to be healthy -- but fortunately science prevailed and the warnings were actually strengthened (although they still don't mention the actual food, just the unhealthy components of those foods.

    In addition, since then, research has shown that red meat and eggs both promote TMAO which has been shown to be a significant contributor to heart disease.

    In the end, the only reason for eating eggs is because you like them -- but they clearly carry health risks.  So, if you enjoy eggs more than you enjoy your continued good health, Eat Up!
  • Reply 71 of 79
    melgross said:
    ireland said:
    ireland said:
    for consideration (forks over knives): www.youtube.com/watch?v=g__LROraYY8
    Tl;dw

    Eat less meat or quit meat and you'll be healthier. More than 5% protein in your diet is bad news. It's a pretty convincing documentary and backs up other information we're learning these days.

    Repressed anger is also huge for disease—results in excessive stress for sometimes decades-long durations, which the body does not handle well.

    We'll get there. Give us 100 years. We're still in the dark ages with presidents with obvious daddy issues. 
    Meat and protein are two different things. Most everyone benefits from additional protein, in numerous ways. The essential amino acids are used for building and repairing the body. High protein assists in muscle retention and burning fat, which nearly all of us could use.
    Yes, meat and protein are two different things, I'll give you that. But above 5% protein in your diet is still unhealthy, according to the conclusions of the professors in this documentary—who independently came to the same thinking on the matter. It probably goes back to how we evolved. Only now do we have so much excess of everything. Moderation is key.
    As someone with a masters in bio, and who remains a member of several scientific bodies, I can tell You that much of what that movie said is full of crap. The people who did that had their prejudices, and pushed them forwards with that film. It like the China study itself, which I've read. There's so much wrong with it, and it's been criticized on so many fronts.

    that 5% is nonsense.
    Yeh, the meat, dairy and processed food industries hate actual research like the China Study.   It makes them look bad.  Very Bad.  So, they trash talk it and then proclaim its been "discredited".   But, we know that like the tobacco companies before them:   They Lie!

    BTW, nobody is advocating 5% protein.   Most whole plant foods contain more than that.   But, but basic research did show that 5% animal protein turned cancer off while 20% of the same protein turned it back on -- but those levels can only be reached in a highly controlled environment....   The healthy amount of protein is 8-15% of plant based proteins...
  • Reply 72 of 79
    ireland said:
    Lets wait and see. This is something where there's a huge difference between doing research and shipping a fully regulated product with such important medical functionality. It's not news in the sense that it was already commonly understood Apple were interested in this. Let's wait until something ships before becoming aroused by the possibilities.

    Unfortunately it is news.  At least it featured prominently on the CBS Evening News last night.
  • Reply 73 of 79
    GeorgeBMac said:

    But, there may be an even bigger obstacle to its deployment than technical limitations:  The FDA, the medical community and medical device manufacturers -- because they want a closed system that uses their own devices that cost 10 times what they're worth to be the only ones used.  Because, in America, healthcare is first and foremost about profit.


    Apple is big enough and newsworthy enough to blow past that sort of resistance.  If they develop something that works, they'll be able to get it approved.  Think what kind of public fervor they could drum up from diabetics from a single one-page ad in the New York Times (and the subsequent news stories).  Heck, a simple public letter on their home page would do the trick.
  • Reply 74 of 79
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,203member
    ireland said:
    melgross said:
    ireland said:
    ireland said:
    for consideration (forks over knives): www.youtube.com/watch?v=g__LROraYY8
    Tl;dw

    Eat less meat or quit meat and you'll be healthier. More than 5% protein in your diet is bad news. It's a pretty convincing documentary and backs up other information we're learning these days.

    Repressed anger is also huge for disease—results in excessive stress for sometimes decades-long durations, which the body does not handle well.

    We'll get there. Give us 100 years. We're still in the dark ages with presidents with obvious daddy issues. 
    Meat and protein are two different things. Most everyone benefits from additional protein, in numerous ways. The essential amino acids are used for building and repairing the body. High protein assists in muscle retention and burning fat, which nearly all of us could use.
    Yes, meat and protein are two different things, I'll give you that. But above 5% protein in your diet is still unhealthy, according to the conclusions of the professors in this documentary—who independently came to the same thinking on the matter. It probably goes back to how we evolved. Only now do we have so much excess of everything. Moderation is key.
    As someone with a masters in bio, and who remains a member of several scientific bodies, I can tell You that much of what that movie said is full of crap. The people who did that had their prejudices, and pushed them forwards with that film. It like the China study itself, which I've read. There's so much wrong with it, and it's been criticized on so many fronts.

    that 5% is nonsense.
    The proof of the pudding's in the eating. Saying you've a masters in bio or that you're a member of several scientific bodies isn't an argument, btw. You're going to have to present an argument as to why you feel "much of what that movie said is full of crap". Hawking was wrong on black holes and information exchange arguing the information simply ceases to exist and goes nowhere and argued strongly all the while on the matter, for years, ignoring others on this until eventually he came around. Credentials, qualifications and bodies mean diddly squat. A good argument or point is where it counts. Tell us where it's wrong and make your point. Leave your credentials at the door. But whatever theories or ways of doing these doctors have it seems to be helping the people of ill health who took part.
    "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'"
    —Isaac Asimov. 

    Not all opinions are equal. 

    Hawking wasn't proven to be incorrect by some YouTube jackass with an agenda, but by a Stanford physics professor who was one of the developers of string theory. Credentials can be kind of important for judging the merit of what somebody is saying. Sort of like how the vast majority of "scientists" who "disagree" with theories about man-influenced climate change are NOT climatologists. That's actually relevant. 
    edited April 14
  • Reply 75 of 79
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 877member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:

    ireland said:
    for consideration (forks over knives): www.youtube.com/watch?v=g__LROraYY8
    Tl;dw

    Eat less meat or quit meat and you'll be healthier. More than 5% protein in your diet is bad news. It's a pretty convincing documentary and backs up other information we're learning these days.

    Repressed anger is also huge for disease—results in excessive stress for sometimes decades-long durations, which the body does not handle well.

    We'll get there. Give us 100 years. We're still in the dark ages with presidents with obvious daddy issues. 
    We are with food where we were in the 60's & 70's with smoking:   The science is there pointing to the cause of some of our deadliest and most debilitating diseases, but the industry that profits from that cause is doing their best to suppress or muddy the waters around that science.  Just like the tobacco companies before them, Big-Food does not want the public to realize that they are selling them toxic substances.
    "sugar is just empty calories"
    "moderation"
    "You need calcium from milk for strong bones"
    "eggs are one of nature's perfect foods"
    "Meat supplies the protein you need to be strong"
    Ah, the egg conspiracy. Eggs are fine. For most people dietary cholesterol is fine and doesn't affect blood cholesterol. 
    That's true!   (If you believe the egg industry!)  Actually eggs are not only high in saturated fats and cholesterol (both of which the USDA says to restrict or avoid) but they also promote TMAO which is closely associated with heart disease.   Other than that, they're perfect!  Well, perfect except for being associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer... 
    Cholesterol isn't a problem and a lot of recent research appears to support that idea. Sugar is a huge problem and always has been. The difference is there was never a 'fat' lobby to protect it. The sugar lobby has done a great job of protecting the industry but is feeling the heat now.
    Yeh, that's the smoke screen put out by the meat and dairy industries:  blame sugar.    The truth is:  saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, TMAO and refined carbs like sugar are all bad for you.   It's not either/or...
    What I meant was that cholesterol is absolutely necessary and people have been eating saturated fats for a long time. 

    Trans fats, excess sugar, overly refined products, unbalanced diets etc are relatively new things and we are seeing the consequences. I'm simplifying of course, as a sedentary lifestyle will also lead to problems but cholesterol very probably isn't one of them whereas added sugar definitely is.

    We know exactly what white refined sugar does to us and it isn't nice. We also know that trans fats only have commercial advantages and are very damaging to health. Ditto palm oil etc.

    Saying eggs are bad because of cholesterol doesn't ring to well with recent research from many studies that say cholesterol probably isn't a big factor in heart disease.

    Of course, if your cholesterol hits a certain number, your doctor will ask you to change your diet and take medication. Something that probably isn't very good for you. But that's another story.
    "cholesterol is absolutely necessary and people have been eating saturated fats for a long time. "
    Yeh, that's the smoke screen put by the meat and dairy industies....  

    Yes, our bodies do need cholesterol -- but the part industry seems to forget is that those same bodies make all that they need and strongly conserve it.   But today, we flood our bodies with dietary cholesterol and saturated fats which promote it.  So, we get an epidemic of heart disease and related maladies.  And, the science still says that the higher your cholesterol level, the higher your risk for cardiovascular diseases.

    "Saying eggs are bad because of cholesterol doesn't ring to well with recent research"
    The USDA has said to limit or eliminate saturated fats and dietary cholesterol -- both of which are prominent ingredients in eggs.  The meat and dairy industries lobbied hard to get rid of those warnings and for a while those industries were announcing that their products were now proclaimed to be healthy -- but fortunately science prevailed and the warnings were actually strengthened (although they still don't mention the actual food, just the unhealthy components of those foods.

    In addition, since then, research has shown that red meat and eggs both promote TMAO which has been shown to be a significant contributor to heart disease.

    In the end, the only reason for eating eggs is because you like them -- but they clearly carry health risks.  So, if you enjoy eggs more than you enjoy your continued good health, Eat Up!
    Doctors that work for government follow established protocols. Those protocols are passed down from medical committees. Your family doctor has enough on his plate already, keeping up with new and modified protocols and has little time to read through recent studies. The result is that if your results continually show high cholesterol, you will be asked to take medication if you don't respond to other suggestions (diet changes, exercise etc). You may have a medical condition that keeps your numbers high and that is partly not diet related. Your doctor may have no desire to challange any of those protocols or even fear reprisals if the required protocols aren't followed.

    I haven't read the USDA guidance but you don't have to go that far back in time to find entire populations cooking in lard, butter etc, and eating lots of fat.

    Many of those populations lived long and happy lives in spite of that intake. I'm sure many died with high cholesterol too and some probably didn't have high levels of cholesterol at all.

    The simple question is, if people are suffering from so much heart disease now, why are we singling out certain foods every decade in search of a 'bad guy' and, knowing that sugar is not at all good for us, not doing anything (serious) to reduce sugar intake?

    I'm pretty sure that if you begin investigating food processing methods, you will hit on a range of elements that make production easier, increase shelf life, improve textures etc. and few, if any will offer anything extra in terms of health.

    Partially hydrogenated oils have been under the cosh for a while. Many manufacturers are now eliminating them (and marketing the fact to)

    Palm oil is now receiving negative views for a variety of reasons and some manufacturers are responding by reducing or eliminating use of it.

    Sugar, at long last, is being scrutinised at government levels and actions to reduce intake (higher taxes etc) are being proposed (in spite of the lobbies).

    EU labelling from last year gives a lot more information on what is actually in the food we buy. People can take better decisions as a result.

    At the end of the day I think the best way to live is by buying quality ingredients and preparing them like our grandparents did. Eggs, nasty fats Included, but balancing it all out with beans, fruit, vegetables, fish etc. We have advantages in that we can cook things in ways our grandparents couldn't or were reluctant to, and we can pick and choose. I'm glad to see kale back in the local shops.


  • Reply 76 of 79

    I'm curious and really have no idea, but would glucose sensors be handy for people who do not have diabetes?  For instance, would they be able to tell you when you need to be careful or track your levels over time and then be able to tell you that at this rate you're likely heading toward diabetes, time to change your diet?

    If so, that could be useful for more people than those who already have diabetes. 
    I think glucose sensors can be quite nice to have, even for people without diabetes.  As well as having high blood sugars, low blood sugars can be a problem as well.  There are college students, athletes, and otherwise healthy people who are "too busy" to eat regularly that wind up having problems with low blood sugars.  

    As others have stated, some foods, or quantities of food, and our bodies response to them, cause swings in blood sugar that can be difficult for our bodies to cope with.  Even if the average person doesn't get very sick, they wouldn't feel great.  Continuous blood sugar monitoring would be great for studying this and optimizing our diets.  We are starting to learn more about glycemic index, but we can learn more.  

    Other medical problems lead to unstable blood sugars as well.  Use of steroids.  Adrenal insufficiency.  Alcoholism and liver problems.  etc.
  • Reply 77 of 79
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 26,173member
    True or not, this is the kind of thing that would continue to build long term value for Apple.
  • Reply 78 of 79
    GeorgeBMac said:

    But, there may be an even bigger obstacle to its deployment than technical limitations:  The FDA, the medical community and medical device manufacturers -- because they want a closed system that uses their own devices that cost 10 times what they're worth to be the only ones used.  Because, in America, healthcare is first and foremost about profit.


    Apple is big enough and newsworthy enough to blow past that sort of resistance.  If they develop something that works, they'll be able to get it approved.  Think what kind of public fervor they could drum up from diabetics from a single one-page ad in the New York Times (and the subsequent news stories).  Heck, a simple public letter on their home page would do the trick.
    Do not think of 'that resistance' as some bureaucrat making declarations.   It is a powerful combination of government and industry fully determined to maintain their control over their domain.  They might bend to public pressure -- but only after forcing Apple to adhere to their standards.
  • Reply 79 of 79
    nhtnht Posts: 3,416member
    I LMAO at TMAO
Sign In or Register to comment.