Type II diabetes Mellitus is a chronic and lifeshortening disease characterized by insulin resistence from an overabundance of stored glycogen. Insulin resistence causes the abnormal laboratory findings of hyperglycemia, hyperinsulinemia and elevated glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1C). The majority of individuals with heart disease, renal disease necessitating dialysis, retinopathy and aputation suffer with diabetes. [Novice juicer's note : diabetes is the most costly disease in America costing more than 1 out of every 4 (27%) of all the dollars Medicare spends each year. ] A reduction in insulin resistence, serum glucose, fasting insulin and HbA1C has been observed in men treated with non-oral testosterone.

At presetn there is no cure for diabetes and there has been no radical breakthroughs since the discovery of insulin in 1922 by Banting and Best. Medical treatment with oral hypoglycemic agents and insulin is offered to patients to "lower" their serum glucose. This approach, however, fails to address the true physiology of type II diabetes. It is prorposed that the underlying physiology of insulin resistence is a defect in the utilization of glucose within the cell. Since 80% of the glucose is stored in the muscle and only 20% in the liver, this defect primarily affects glycogen utilization within the muscle, preventing the muscle from using glycogen stores. Increasing glycogen stores inhibits the transportation of glucose across the cell membrane for storage. [novice juicers note: this explains why exercise has been shown to reduce insulin resistence 43%. Exercise depletes the stored glycogen in the muscle, allowing more glycogen to enter the muscle after exercise] This resistence to glucose entering the cells results in elevated serum glucose (hyperglycemia) which causes an increased release of insulin (hyperinsulinemia).

lowering blood glucose by forcing more glucose into cells with medication does not address the underlying physiologic problem of resistence. These diseases processes continue as increasing glycogen deposits magnify the problems of obesity, which in turn, increases insulin resistence.

Moller and other European physicians used testosterone to treat people with severe diabetes in the 1960's and 1970's. In 1996 we offered male patients with severe diabetes testosterone treatment. {The author Dr. Licten then lists several case studies of successfully treating diabetes with testo}.

Sex Hormone binding globulin (SHBG) is the ligand that binds testosterone, dihydrotestosterone and estradiol to the cell wall. Without SHBG, no gonadal hormone can enter the cell, penetrate the nucleus and generate release of m-RNA to cause gene expression. Men have much less SHBG than women because men need to "turn on" testosterone receptors to remain male. SHBG has been shown to be an estrogen amplifier (DC Anderson, Sex Hormone Binding Globulin, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology, 1972; 3:69-96). Elevated SHBG and estradiol are found in men with central obesity, gynocomastia and tyupe II diabetes.

Normal men have more free testosterone than free estradiol only when there is adequate testosterone and SHBG is less than 15 pmol/L. An increase in SHBG preferentially binds testosterone over estradiol, shifting the ratio to greater free estradiol over testosterone, a state that is not conducive to normal male function.

Parenteral (injections and pellets) testosterone can help reverse the shift to estradiol dominance by increasing testosterone levels and lowering SHBG.

We postulate that type II diabetes in men is usually a state of relative hypogonadism and that restosterone is appropriate gender specific treatment.

Novice Juicer : This excerpt is about 1/4 of the entire article. The author then demonstrates a graph that shows how tesosterone benefits type II diabetes. The graph shows that -

The researchers mention that the "defect" of insulin resistance lies in the cell and receptor. I postulate that this is not a defect at all, but the normal physiology of human beings. The real defect lies in diets which are high in carbs.

Although Homo Sapien (for those of you who failed science, that us) has remained relatively unchanged for the last 20,000 years or so, our diets have changed dramatically over this period. Early HS's, who were hunter/gatherers, ate relatively low carb, high fat, high protein diets (this is inferred by fossil records). Their carbs came from the then available sources; vegetation (very low carbs), wild roots, such as yams (which are much smaller, less starchy and lower in carbs than "modern" domesticated varieties), and fruits/berries, which were only available seasonally. Protein and fat came from hunted animals/fish and, seasonally, eggs. If we can draw any correlation between early humans and other carnivors/omnivors, then these humans ate the fattiest parts of their kills first, as this is what is seen in other flesh-eating animals (they must instinctively "know" that fat is more condusive to their survival, as it holds more potential energy than muscle tissue). So, again, we can infer that the diet of early humans was relatively low carb, high fat, and high protein. This type of diet is still observed in some isolated primitive tribes who have remained hunter/gatherers and have changed very little over thousands of years.

Higher carb diets were not introduced until the domestication of grains, about 4000 years ago, which started in the Middle East. While the evolutionary pressure of the change in diet has caused some adaptation, 4000 years is a mere blink in time, so low insulin sensitivty and other issues associated with high carb diets (allergies to wheat glutens, etc) are still very prevelent. Same goes for milk, other than breast milk for a baby. Milk was introduced as a food about 2000-3000 years ago, and look how much of the population is still lactose intolerant or has other problems with milk. I think I read that like 60-70% of the world's population is lactose intolerant, with figures much higher in populations who more recently have introduced milk as a food, like orientals.

If you look around, you'll see that people who are naturally lean on high carb diets are the exception, not the rule. This is due to the high insulin sensitivity of their cells. In other words, insulin works very well in their bodies at transferring glucose, especially into muscle cells. That also translates into less glucose being stored as fat. Those of you out there who are like this should consider yourselves very fortunate. Over the last 30 years, even as the fat content of the American diet has been lowered, Americans have become fatter and sicker! Why? Because the fat has been replaced with carbs, especially sugar. I feel that this is one of the reasons why type II diabeties is so prevelent in modern society, especially in our country. Give a person with low insulin sensitvity a high carb diet (including lots of WHITE DEATH) for 30 years and what happens? After all that time of being bombarded by high levels of insulin, the receptors shut down. So, a doctor puts this person on Metformin and tells them to exercise a little, treating the symptom, not the cause. Also, this person, in all likelihood, is a big fat slob with other medical issues, such as heart disease, all of which probably can be traced to their inability to process all those carbs (I think in ten years or so, lower carb diets will be much more main stream and some of this info will be proven through controlled studies. Right now, most of these theories are in their infancy stage. The US Gov't recently did a study comparing low fat vs. low carb diets. That's a start). If they are working out hard, then they may only carry "normal" levels of body fat and be relatively healthy, but they'll never get ripped on carbs. When Dr. Robert Atkins formulated his no-carb diet, he didn't do it for fat loss, he did it for his diabetic patients to reduce or eliminate their neeed for medication. Fat loss was a side effect! This was also Dan Duchaine's entire premise with Body Opus. He said once in MM2K, (I don't remember the exact quote) "While most elite bodybuilders have optimal genetics and can get lean on high carbs, most lower level competitors will never achieve very low bodyfat levels" with carbs in their diets.

Anyway, my point is that if any of you guys (or gals) out there are having problems getting lean, you may want to try cutting down on your carb intake. For me, that means CKD's, but reducing them to say 40%, 30%, or even 20% of your daily calories will probably do wonders for you (also, as NJ's post implies, do some juice!!) I don't want to step on anybody's toes regarding their religeous beliefs, but I believe in evolution and, as such, feel that every animal has an optimal diet to which they have adapted to over time. I feel that for most people, this means relatively low carbs, trying to stay away from high glycemic carbs except right after a workout.

Also, you can have two sub-species of an animal, like sparrows, living in the same forest, each of which thrives on a very different diet; maybe one on bugs and the other on seeds. Part of knowing your body is learning what is optimal for you, in terms of diet, how you work out, how much rest you need. Just because your buddy looks great and is ripped eating 1000 grams of carbs a day, sleeping 4 hours a night, and working out 6 on/1 off doesn't mean you can achieve the same results doing the same things. Do some research and experimentation (my body is my laboratory), and eventually, you'll learn what makes your body respond the way you want.

Lthrnk, you seem to have quite a bit of exeperience with low carb diets and you've competed. What are your thoughts?