Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is obvious for a lot of folks including me. Excessive sugar consumption was the cause of MY type 2 diabetes. My poison of choice was regular coke in excess amounts on a daily basis for years and years. Your's may be something else. My pancreas couldn't keep up and eventually broke down. IMO, genetics only play a small part with this disease. The main culprit is diet of course. The ADA spews out tons of misinformation all causing even more harm. Take a look if you wish.
Well, of course, we all have our own ideas and theories, of the how's and why's. But I don't believe all cases are like yourself. and have come to realize, that even doctors harbor their own opinions, which is what makes the world go round and allows us to consider other points of view especially in the science and medical fields.
My son's father was a cronic diabetic, and he didn't eat or drink a lot of sweets, actually didn't care for them. He was hospitalized, when he was a senior in high school, when they found out. He's been very lucky though, and has only lost two toes because of it. And still doing very well.
Now the doctor's always told us, (at that period in time for as much as they knew) that we didn't have to worry about our son, as much as our son's children, but it might be wise to have him checked every year or so. So we did, and nothing.
but, 5 years ago, his daughter was diagnosed as Type 1. She also, was not given a lot of sweets, mainly b/c her mother was always very weight consciencious, and didn't believe in giving kids a lot of sweets. She now has the pump and is doing pretty good, although her sugar count seems to be all over the place...but the pump is convenient.
So? I do believe it is genetic...to a great degree...for some, of course, not all, but also believe we must keep an open mind...because not all cases are the same....
Last edited by cremebrulee; 08-31-2017 at 05:57 AM..
OK, folks. One more attempt to straighten you out. An example:
Hypertension is defined as bp>140/90. If one has hypertension and takes their pills, the bp will come down to < 140/90, but you still have the disease hypertension.
Diabetes is defined as a bs> 120mg%. If a diabetic exercises, eats properly and takes the proper meds, the bs will come down below 120, but he still has diabetes.
Re: genetics-- you can't "get" diabetes unless you have certain genetic patterns. It's just like the genes for dark tan-- you can have the genes but you don't get tanned unless you get some sun.
They have found specific genes for T2, but there are many more combinations possible, not found yet. It's complex inheritance. That's why it's not readily apparent that it's genetic.
This is only partially true, according to both of the Newcastle University studies (one small study + one larger followup study), and the McMaster study. According to all three of those studies many cases of diabetes stem from excess accumulation of fat around the liver and pancreas...so the solution in those studies was about reducing the amount of fat around the pancreas and liver through extreme low calorie diets and exercise, (and in the McMaster study, intermittent fasting) not about lowering blood sugar, at all...raising or lowering blood sugar, as you say here, is merely a symptom that is being managed once it is lowered..but according to the doctors in each of those small studies, the actual problem and solution to type 2 diabetes is removing excessive amounts of fat from the insulin receptors of the liver and pancreas. Another study conducted by Dr. Valter Longo at the University of Southern California produced the same findings.
These studies showed a normalization of insulin response in type 2 diabetics (without medication), not just lowered blood sugar. At that point, theyre are able to be considered diabetic in label only...but certainly not so by any clinical standard.
Last edited by soletaire; 08-31-2017 at 06:15 AM..
According to all three of those studies many cases of diabetes stem from excess accumulation of fat around the liver and pancreas...so the solution in those studies was about reducing the amount of fat around the pancreas and liver through extreme low calorie diets and exercise
True, but the fat around the liver and pancreas is caused by consumption of sugar and refined carbs and low calorie will not necessarily help. It has to be low carb. To remedy this situation, you have to cut back on what caused the problem in the first place. Exercise always helps.
Do you understand the difference between increasing risk and actual causation?
If you don't, there is no point in continuing this debate.
Yes, I understand the difference.
And if you don't understand that the best way to avoid Type 2 diabetes is maintain the correct weight and exercise (like the best way to avoid lung cancer is to not smoke and the best way to avoid skin cancer is not to fry in the sun), there is no point in continuing the debate.
I don't care if you want to call it increasing risk or causation or correlation or whatever. T2, for the most part, can be avoided.
Why are you in such denial about T2 diabetes and obesity?
...Why are you in such denial about T2 diabetes and obesity?
One does not have to be obese to get diabetes. I have never, ever been obese, and inherited it from my mother's genetics. It is well controlled through diet, exercise, and medication. But I am still a Type 2.
It was only discovered by accident by a nurse putting a little stick in a cup into which I urinated as part of a vanpool driver physical examination. I was extremely physically active and fit, playing tennis twice a week and riding a century, (i.e., 100-mile bicycle ride), every few months. Was even in the middle of the "healthy" range on the BMI charts.
Oh come on. The best way to avoid Type 2 diabetes is to maintain the correct weight for your height (along with taking a 20-minute walk everyday), and you know it. That your overweight mom and overweight dad had T2 doesn't cut it as being genetic.
We need studies of Type 2 diabetics who ARE the correct weight (and take that 20-minute walk or run marathons). Then we can determine if is genetic, and if it can be related to a certain diet.
Thyroid disease can predispose people to diabetes, and it doesn't matter how much they weigh. They may start noticing pre-diabetes symptoms at some point, even if they've been slim and trim all their lives.
.but according to the doctors in each of those small studies, the actual problem and solution to type 2 diabetes is removing excessive amounts of fat from the insulin receptors of the liver and pancreas.
.
You imply that surgical removal of the fat would cure the diabetes. Patently false. (BTW- insulin receptors bind insulin, not fat.)
The fat may accumulate there in a certain group of patients and the lower cal diet would reduce the blood sugar and the fat stores-- coincidentally-- not cause and effect.
Cf- Metabolic syndrome-- hi cholesterol, diabetes and accumulation of pre-abdominal fat stores-- associated with increased CV risk.
Remember that we talk about "diabetes" as if it were a single pathological condition. It's not, just like "fever" is not a disease, but a measurable parameter-- like BS--and can be caused by many different conditions.
There are many diabetics who have excellent control of BS/HbA1c yet they develop sever complications of diabetes, and there are many diabetics in lousy control who never get complications. It must be something other than just blood sugar that's important. It's probably the actual genetic mechanism for each particular patient that is the key factor in determining complications.
One does not have to be obese to get diabetes. I have never, ever been obese, and inherited it from my mother's genetics. It is well controlled through diet, exercise, and medication. But I am still a Type 2.
It was only discovered by accident by a nurse putting a little stick in a cup into which I urinated as part of a vanpool driver physical examination. I was extremely physically active and fit, playing tennis twice a week and riding a century, (i.e., 100-mile bicycle ride), every few months. Was even in the middle of the "healthy" range on the BMI charts.
While I think much of this current diabetes epidemic is caused by being overweight, I know that not all of it is. This is just from my own experience but I had one aunt and one uncle who developed type 2 when they were late 80s/early 90s. Neither one was overweight at all BUT what they both had in common was that they liked to cook. And what they both liked to cook was fancy gourmet type desserts. They probably both ate more sugar than the other family members who never developed diabetes. Maybe a little bit of it was genetic but more of it seems to be diet-related. But not weight related.
I have to wonder how my husband eats so many carbs, all day, every day, and his pancreas is fine. He eats cakes, pies, cookies, and candy all day long and has all his 60+ years...but he has no diabetes. There is no diabetes in his family.
I know people like this. When they're not eating deserts, they're chewing on candy. I don't understand it.
You imply that surgical removal of the fat would cure the diabetes. Patently false. (BTW- insulin receptors bind insulin, not fat.)
The fat may accumulate there in a certain group of patients and the lower cal diet would reduce the blood sugar and the fat stores-- coincidentally-- not cause and effect.
Cf- Metabolic syndrome-- hi cholesterol, diabetes and accumulation of pre-abdominal fat stores-- associated with increased CV risk.
Remember that we talk about "diabetes" as if it were a single pathological condition. It's not, just like "fever" is not a disease, but a measurable parameter-- like BS--and can be caused by many different conditions.
There are many diabetics who have excellent control of BS/HbA1c yet they develop sever complications of diabetes, and there are many diabetics in lousy control who never get complications. It must be something other than just blood sugar that's important. It's probably the actual genetic mechanism for each particular patient that is the key factor in determining complications.
A poster on another thread turned me on to Dr. Jason Fung's research and diabetes/pre-diabetes treatment today, so I'm sharing that. He says high blood sugar levels are just the symptom, like a fever is a symptom of a viral infection. Treating the fever with aspiring doesn't faze the virus. To heal the patient, you have to target the virus. But most doctors treat diabetes, which is an endocrine issue--insulin resistance, by feeding more insulin into the system to lower blood sugar. They don't treat the insulin resistance, so the disease progresses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
