Posts Tagged ‘Question’

Internal fat around organs can increase diabetes and heart risks
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:03 p.m. PT May 11, 2007
LONDON – If it really is what’s on the inside that counts, then a lot of thin people might be in trouble.
Some doctors now think that the internal fat surrounding vital organs like the heart, liver or pancreas — invisible to the naked eye — could be as dangerous as the more obvious external fat that bulges underneath the skin.
“Being thin doesn’t automatically mean you’re not fat,” said Dr. Jimmy Bell, a professor of molecular imaging at Imperial College, London. Since 1994, Bell and his team have scanned nearly 800 people with MRI machines to create “fat maps” showing where people store fat.
According to the data, people who maintain their weight through diet rather than exercise are likely to have major deposits of internal fat, even if they are otherwise slim. “The whole concept of being fat needs to be redefined,” said Bell, whose research is funded by Britain’s Medical Research Council.
Without a clear warning signal — like a rounder middle — doctors worry that thin people may be lulled into falsely assuming that because they’re not overweight, they’re healthy.
“Just because someone is lean doesn’t make them immune to diabetes or other risk factors for heart disease,” said Dr. Louis Teichholz, chief of cardiology at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey, who was not involved in Bell’s research.
Even people with normal Body Mass Index scores — a standard obesity measure that divides your weight by the square of your height — can have surprising levels of fat deposits inside.
Of the women scanned by Bell and his colleagues, as many as 45 percent of those with normal BMI scores (20 to 25) actually had excessive levels of internal fat. Among men, the percentage was nearly 60 percent.
Relating the news to what Bell calls “TOFIs” — people who are “thin outside, fat inside” — is rarely uneventful. “The thinner people are, the bigger the surprise,” he said, adding the researchers even found TOFIs among people who are professional models.
According to Bell, people who are fat on the inside are essentially on the threshold of being obese. They eat too many fatty, sugary foods — and exercise too little to work it off — but they are not eating enough to actually be fat. Scientists believe we naturally accumulate fat around the belly first, but at some point, the body may start storing it elsewhere.
Still, most experts believe that being of normal weight is an indicator of good health, and that BMI is a reliable measurement.
“BMI won’t give you the exact indication of where fat is, but it’s a useful clinical tool,” said Dr. Toni Steer, a nutritionist at Britain’s Medical Research Council.
Unhealthy skinny people
Doctors are unsure about the exact dangers of internal fat, but some suspect it contributes to the risk of heart disease and diabetes. They theorize that internal fat disrupts the body’s communication systems. The fat enveloping internal organs might be sending the body mistaken chemical signals to store fat inside organs like the liver or pancreas. This could ultimately lead to insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, or heart disease.
Experts have long known that fat, active people can be healthier than their skinny, inactive counterparts. “Normal-weight persons who are sedentary and unfit are at much higher risk for mortality than obese persons who are active and fit,” said Dr. Steven Blair, an obesity expert at the University of South Carolina.
For example, despite their ripples of fat, super-sized Sumo wrestlers probably have a better metabolic profile than some of their slim, sedentary spectators, Bell said. That’s because the wrestlers’ fat is primarily stored under the skin, not streaking throughout their vital organs and muscles.
The good news is that internal fat can be easily burned off through exercise or even by improving your diet. “Even if you don’t see it on your bathroom scale, caloric restriction and physical exercise have an aggressive effect on visceral fat,” said Dr. Bob Ross, an obesity expert at Queen’s University in Canada.
Because many factors contribute to heart disease, Teichholz says it’s difficult to determine the precise danger of internal fat — though it certainly doesn’t help.
“Obesity is a risk factor, but it’s lower down on the totem pole of risk factors,” he said, explaining that whether or not people smoke, their family histories and blood pressure and cholesterol rates are more important determinants than both external and internal fat.
When it comes to being fit, experts say there is no short-cut. “If you just want to look thin, then maybe dieting is enough,” Bell said. “But if you want to actually be healthy, then exercise has to be an important component of your lifestyle.”

I just found out I am Type II diabetic. My A1c is 6 and I just had a baby 3 months ago, I had gestational diabetes that did not go away after delivery. My question is about glucose levels. My doctor told me NOT to check my glucose, but instead follow the diabetic diet and exercise every day for at least 30 minutes and go back in 3 months to check my A1c, peptides (something like that, not sure), and cholesterol levels and that those will be an indicator of my glucose levels during the past 3 months. BUT, since I am very depressed and sad about the diagnosis, I want to make sure that I am doing the right thing, so I have been checking my glucose levels at home once in a while regardless of what my doctor said. My readings every morning (fasting) are between 102-110, never below that. My levels 2 hours after meals are usually around 130-145, never below that. Does anyone know if these readings are dangerous for me? I mean, if they are causing damage to my organs. I am following the diet and doing exercise but I can’t get lower readings. I won’t see my doctor until 3 months from now, and I am concerned about the probable damage that these high readings are doing to my body. I already had myopia (nearsightedness) and floaters in my eyes, and I don’t want to lose my eyesight due to high readings…Please help…sorry if I am ignorant, but I am new to this and don’t know what to do. Thanks.

I went to a doctors apt today to get diet pills. He said I needed to get some blood work done before he could put me on these pills. I really want them. He said I needed to get a test for my sugar, thyroid and cholesterol. He also said if it comes out negative I could have the pills. The sugar test (not sure what it’s called) goes back 3 months. My question is….With halloween and the many birthday parties I have gone to, plus the amount of sugar I take in all day…. how bad is that? What is the test for exactly (high or low blood pressure), (diabetes), etc? What can I do to get the sugar out of my system, drink tons of water?

first let me say that I’ve already made adjustments on my diet…..although I do eat more than “carrots & tree bark”…….I don’t exercise enough but I do exercise……I am Type II but my A1C’s have hovered around 6 since I started my Metformin two years ago………my cholesterol is 160………with Pravastatin…….I have tried Niaspan for 8 months …with fish oil…..but quit the Niaspan when it didn’t work……….I use Metamucil fiber supplement once or twice a day…….and I have been on Gemfibrozil for 5 months with no effect on my fasting triglyceride level of 400……I am 51……….SO HERE’S MY QUESTION ………ROFL…………
……… here’s what I can’t figure out………a fasting triglyceride level is supposed to be under 200………….that’s after 8 – 12 hours of fasting……….of course we don’t fast during the day……….if you ever tried to cheat on that test then you know that even a “minute” amount of food will shoot the results up to as much as 1000 or 1500……….so if THAT’S the case?………….our triglyceride levels are in that upper range EVERY day until we stop eating for the day……..and sleep overnight….so in truth our low fasting level is only for a VERY small portion of our day……for a few hours in early morning…if that…………then “what difference does having a fasting rate make that is only a couple hundred points under what we have now?”……ie : 400 now………….200 as a goal…………………………..in order for their formula to make sense to me we would have to be fasting everyday…………..so hypothetically instead of 1600 a person might have a day rate of 1400?……so wouldn’t the actual effect be negligible?…………or does the rate multiply from the fasting rate instead of adding?……..so instead of a day rate of 1600 one might have a day rate of 3200 if they start with a fasting rate of 400 instead of 200?……..I have been thinking this but haven’t been able to ask my doctor yet…and could find NOTHING online about my theory……..which I’m sure is incorrect……….but I need to know why………thank you …………..

…..first let me say that I’ve already made adjustments on my diet…..although I do eat more than “carrots & tree bark”…….I don’t exercise enough but I do exercise……I am Type II but my A1C’s have hovered around 6 since I started my Metformin two years ago………my cholesterol is 160………with Pravastatin…….I have tried Niaspan for 8 months …with fish oil…..but quit the Niaspan when it didn’t work……….I use Metamucil fiber supplement once or twice a day…….and I have been on Gemfibrozil for 5 months with no effect on my fasting triglyceride level of 400……I am 51……….SO HERE’S MY QUESTION ………ROFL…………
……… here’s what I can’t figure out………a fasting triglyceride level is supposed to be under 200………….that’s after 8 – 12 hours of fasting……….of course we don’t fast during the day……….if you ever tried to cheat on that test then you know that even a “minute” amount of food will shoot the results up to as much as 1000 or 1500……….so if THAT’S the case?………….our triglyceride levels are in that upper range EVERY day until we stop eating for the day……..and sleep overnight….so in truth our low fasting level is only for a VERY small portion of our day……for a few hours in early morning…if that…………then “what difference does having a fasting rate make that is only a couple hundred points under what we have now?”……ie : 400 now………….200 as a goal…………………………..in order for their formula to make sense to me we would have to be fasting everyday…………..so hypothetically instead of 1600 a person might have a day rate of 1400?……so wouldn’t the actual effect be negligible?…………or does the rate multiply from the fasting rate instead of adding?……..so instead of a day rate of 1600 one might have a day rate of 3200 if they start with a fasting rate of 400 instead of 200?……..I have been thinking this but haven’t been able to ask my doctor yet…and could find NOTHING online about my theory……..which I’m sure is incorrect……….but I need to know why………thank you in advance if ANYBODY can answer this nagging question…………