Brace yourselves. The natural condition in the body of gaining a resistance toward repeated overexposure to a substance can be improved by... wait for it... NOT repeatedly overexposing the body to that substance. I know. Shocker.
Yet another formal study is examining the reversibility of type 2 diabetes some 50 years after the mechanism was well understood: https://nexs.ku.dk/…/reduction-of-carbohydrate-intake-impr…/
People who’ve built a resistance to the impact of alcohol can regain sensitivity to it by reduction or abstinence. People who’ve gained a resistance to the impact of caffeine can regain sensitivity to it by reduction or abstinence. But people who’ve built a resistance to the impact of glucose or insulin? Nah. Why would cellular receptors, which are incredibly well understood, operate the same for type 2 diabetes as they do for absolutely everything else in biology? Am I right? Right?
Hopefully you caught the sarcasm. Somehow people think diabetes research is new and hotly-debated even though we have Egyptian descriptions of it from over THREE THOUSAND years ago. Since at least the 1970s we’ve known that controlling blood sugar IS the therapeutic intervention for type 2 diabetics: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2014359/
What might be the most profound way to slow or stop the damage caused by uncontrolled blood sugar?
... control it better.
Yep. We needed a study to tell us that. Not a joke. Despite the overwhelming evidence and paper after paper showing incontrovertible proof that dietary interventions at the very least slow the progression of diabetes, we may as well add another to the pile.