So confused right now by the American Diabetes Association
Crisseyda
Posts: 532 Member
Can some please explain this American Diabetes Association myth vs fact?
Myth: Diabetes is caused by eating too much sugar.
Fact: Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger its onset; type 2 is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors. Being overweight increases your risk for developing type 2, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that sugary drinks are linked to type 2 diabetes.
What exactly are they trying to fix or solve by stating this dichotomy? Sugar is fine, but not sugary drinks? As if the two were different?
I had no idea that stating that excess sugar/carbohydrate consumption promotes the development of type 2 diabetes was controversial (it goes along with everything I've ever read on the topic), but now that I see the ADA myth vs fact, it kind of makes sense.
I'm just confused at this point because I had no idea that people believed this. If the cause of T2DM is somehow linked to diet and lifestyle (they admit this much), and the early progression of the disease begins with elevated insulin levels, why not promote diet and lifestyle intervention that keeps insulin levels low? Eating a low/moderate amount of carbohydrates and especially avoiding those that quickly elevated blood sugar and hence insulin (sugar and refined carbohydrates)--not just sugary drinks. And why link sugary drink to the development of T2DM, but not sugar? So confused.
Myth: Diabetes is caused by eating too much sugar.
Fact: Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger its onset; type 2 is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors. Being overweight increases your risk for developing type 2, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that sugary drinks are linked to type 2 diabetes.
What exactly are they trying to fix or solve by stating this dichotomy? Sugar is fine, but not sugary drinks? As if the two were different?
I had no idea that stating that excess sugar/carbohydrate consumption promotes the development of type 2 diabetes was controversial (it goes along with everything I've ever read on the topic), but now that I see the ADA myth vs fact, it kind of makes sense.
I'm just confused at this point because I had no idea that people believed this. If the cause of T2DM is somehow linked to diet and lifestyle (they admit this much), and the early progression of the disease begins with elevated insulin levels, why not promote diet and lifestyle intervention that keeps insulin levels low? Eating a low/moderate amount of carbohydrates and especially avoiding those that quickly elevated blood sugar and hence insulin (sugar and refined carbohydrates)--not just sugary drinks. And why link sugary drink to the development of T2DM, but not sugar? So confused.
2
Replies
-
I don't think you are confused really - I think you know that the ADA is confused and contradictory. It's not helping anyone with this rubbish!1
-
The AD A doesn't want to make "Big Food" or "Big Pharma" upset by their recommendations, therefore the information does become confusing! We all have to find the level of macros that make us healthy, and stop relying on government agency's to tell us what to eat! Hang in there!
3 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Can some please explain this American Diabetes Association myth vs fact?
Myth: Diabetes is caused by eating too much sugar.
(...)
Fact: unknown factors means Big Pharma and their friends from Big Junk Food spreading misinformation to make sure diabetes is seen as a progressive, incurable disease and to guarantee that those diagnosed "progress" to become lifelong customers.
Ignore the ADA and any doctor that agrees with them. As far as my doctor knows I've been "very lucky" and I cured diabetes so I should keep "doing whatever I'm doing" (she only cares about fasting BG and A1c and doesn't want to know what I do to have good results).
Truth is, I still have my insulin at twice the normal level and I've been paying full price to get that test done every 6 months because she saw "no need to test insulin". But since I did see the need, I know my insulin was sky high when I started and has been going down steadily. By now I no longer care about BG, I test randomly just to be safe. But I'll only stop testing insulin when I get a truly normal result twice in a row. Then I'll consider myself cured.
::flowerforyou::6 -
@aqsylvester The statement is misleading for a number of reasons and it doesn't help that they've lumped T1 and T2 together.
T1 diabetes definitely isn't caused by sugar.
And while we can say that sugar increases blood glucose and contributes to obesity, we can't say that sugar is "the cause" of T2 diabetes. High sugar consumption is really a lifestyle issue that increases the likelihood that one will end up with T2 diabetes and it will aggravate the symptoms of diabetes.
Defining causality is very challenging because research subjects don't live in bubbles and there are so many factors involved and they can be difficult to isolate. We know that obesity increases the chance of getting Type 2 diabetes, but there are people who aren't obese who also have Type 2 diabetes, so there is clearly a genetic component too, albeit I think it's safe to say that obesity is the primary factor.
Based on my own experience and the research of Dr, Fung and the doc here in the UK who has successfully reversed diabetes by reducing organ fat, we're seeing that increased organ fat around the liver and pancreas reduces those organs functions, and when that fat is reduced, some people are finding their diabetes reversed, which suggests that excess organ fat is at least one of the causes of diabetes. Eating too much sugar will increase the chance of obesity, which increases the chance that you will get diabetes, that isn't the same thing as a direct causal link as many factors are involved in obesity.
When we look at research on cholesterol and how much that is changing right now, we see how very hard it is to define causality with medical research.
It's easy to cut open a body and say the cause of death was cancer, this organ failed and the body shut down. We see the decayed organ. But taking that a step back and saying this person got cancer as a result of not eating enough fiber or because they got too many nitrates from bacon or because there is too much pollution in the air or water.... that's pretty tough. That's why what we know about the causes of so many of these diseases is constantly changing and so much of the science is questionable.
But just to be clear, I do think processed sugar is a bad thing and should only be consumed in very limited quantities in its natural state, i.e. fruit, vegetables, honey. And as a Tyoe 2 diabetic, I am very happy to have beaten my own personal sugar addiction and I have found some notable improvements in my glucose management by reducing all forms of carbohydrates from my diet, including sugar.3 -
Amen sister!PaleoInScotland wrote: »@aqsylvester The statement is misleading for a number of reasons and it doesn't help that they've lumped T1 and T2 together.
T1 diabetes definitely isn't caused by sugar.
That's constantly infuriating to see. It doesn't do either condition any good to have things constantly confused.
4 -
PaleoInScotland wrote: »@aqsylvester The statement is misleading for a number of reasons and it doesn't help that they've lumped T1 and T2 together.
T1 diabetes definitely isn't caused by sugar.
And while we can say that sugar increases blood glucose and contributes to obesity, we can't say that sugar is "the cause" of T2 diabetes. High sugar consumption is really a lifestyle issue that increases the likelihood that one will end up with T2 diabetes and it will aggravate the symptoms of diabetes.
Defining causality is very challenging because research subjects don't live in bubbles and there are so many factors involved and they can be difficult to isolate. We know that obesity increases the chance of getting Type 2 diabetes, but there are people who aren't obese who also have Type 2 diabetes, so there is clearly a genetic component too, albeit I think it's safe to say that obesity is the primary factor.
Based on my own experience and the research of Dr, Fung and the doc here in the UK who has successfully reversed diabetes by reducing organ fat, we're seeing that increased organ fat around the liver and pancreas reduces those organs functions, and when that fat is reduced, some people are finding their diabetes reversed, which suggests that excess organ fat is at least one of the causes of diabetes. Eating too much sugar will increase the chance of obesity, which increases the chance that you will get diabetes, that isn't the same thing as a direct causal link as many factors are involved in obesity.
When we look at research on cholesterol and how much that is changing right now, we see how very hard it is to define causality with medical research.
It's easy to cut open a body and say the cause of death was cancer, this organ failed and the body shut down. We see the decayed organ. But taking that a step back and saying this person got cancer as a result of not eating enough fiber or because they got too many nitrates from bacon or because there is too much pollution in the air or water.... that's pretty tough. That's why what we know about the causes of so many of these diseases is constantly changing and so much of the science is questionable.
But just to be clear, I do think processed sugar is a bad thing and should only be consumed in very limited quantities in its natural state, i.e. fruit, vegetables, honey. And as a Tyoe 2 diabetic, I am very happy to have beaten my own personal sugar addiction and I have found some notable improvements in my glucose management by reducing all forms of carbohydrates from my diet, including sugar.
Yes, I believe their website said something about elevated triglycerides blocking insulin, which is linked to consumption of trans fats and saturated fat. Again, when it comes to elevated triglycerides in terms of current research, I'd say yes to trans fats, no to saturated fat, and also yes to sugar. But there's no mention of how sugar elevates triglycerides. Also, if the disease progression starts with elevated insulin due to insulin resistance, my question would be what is causing the insulin resistance? If we know diet is implicated, then in terms of diet, its sugar and things that turn into sugar that cause elevated insulin. I guess I just realized that I've only been reading more independent sources. For one, I follow Dr. Lustig, and I think he's great! So confused as to why people write him off with the simplest statements.
I had no idea how ridiculous the ADA was. I mean, I knew they recommended about 50 carbs at every meal for patients with T2DM, but I thought that was still less than the SAD. When I first heard of the ketogenic diet, I asked the diabetes educator at the hospital where I work. She said it was great, did it herself (she was a slim, older woman), but couldn't teach it to patients because of the ADA guidelines. I didn't realize how contrary they were even in how they tell people to prevent the disease!
I have a Medscape account, and I went on there briefly to see what research I could find. The closest thing I found to implicating carbohydrates was a study on perceptions of prediabetic teenagers who believed that exercise and a low fat diet would prevent diabetes because they had been taught that in school. The researchers mentioned the ignorance about diet that could be contributing to the problem, but nothing more.
Just feeling like I've entered an alternate universe and feeling sad for all the sick and confused patients out there.3 -
I'm just so appreciative of the doctors out there who are brave enough to take a stand and question the medical authorities, it can be career suicide, but many of us in this group have those pioneers to thank for our improving health.
I would never have thought that I could have a chance at treating my diabetes with diet this late in the game if it wasn't for the doctor leading diabetes research in Newcastle who successfully treated diabetic patients and got them off their drugs. He inspired my research which led me to a ketogenic diet. Though I must say, diabetes.co.uk has started to embrace low carb, slowly. Hopefully the ADA will get there too.
I think about how hard it is to get decisions made at the gigantic international corporation I work for right now, I can't even begin to imagine the political games necessary to change the messaging at an organisation like the ADA.3 -
I'm still totally confounded/shocked/confused that sugar/refined carbohydrate intake is not linked to the development of type 2 diabetes in ANY mainstream sources!! Been reading up on so much lately...
Apparently you can induce type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them a high glycemic/low fat diet for 8 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463/?tool=pubmed
In the discussion of the study, they write, "The pathophysiological and histopathological effects observed affirmed the postulation that diet is a major contributing factor to the cause and pathology of diabetes mellitus."
What the heck is wrong with the ADA???2 -
"It's easy to cut open a body and say the cause of death was cancer
Actually what usually advances death is not the cancer but cachexia..inability to utilize nutrition. We see cancer patients as then and emaciated, unable to eat or keep food down.
And the RD is correct LEGALLY/professionally they MAY NOT teach anything but the USDA guidelines of high carb...UNTIL that changes we will see RDs and MDs who do promote LC vilified. (I mentioned in another post here that RDs ARE threatened by peers for suggesting low carb diets to clients)
Cachexia in Cancer Patients, Signs, Cause, and Treatment
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/effectsoflungcancer/a/Cachexia.htm1 -
I would love to find a rebuttal to those posters who squawk on about " The diabetes association recommends diet soda"
Is this correct? And is it true? I detest diet soda, especially aspartame, and fail to see why any health organisation would recommend it??1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I would love to find a rebuttal to those posters who squawk on about " The diabetes association recommends diet soda"
Is this correct? And is it true? I detest diet soda, especially aspartame, and fail to see why any health organisation would recommend it??
Well, as far as I can tell, checking out the ADA website, they are massively funded by pharmaceutical companies. Their nutritional advice is abysmal even in terms of your standard advice. They are still recommending low fat foods (e.g. "fat free milk and yogurt") and avoiding cholesterol, which, as far as I can tell, even the mainstream has finally shifted against this advice. And, yes, they recommend using artificial sweeteners for your "sweet tooth."
From the site:
Myth: You can catch diabetes from someone else.
Fact: No. Although we don’t know exactly why some people develop diabetes, we know diabetes is not contagious. It can't be caught like a cold or flu. There seems to be some genetic link in diabetes, particularly type 2 diabetes. Lifestyle factors also play a part.
Phew! I'm glad they cleared that one up! Most people I encounter are so confused about this.
So yeah... a whole lot of useless, circuitous, vague information. I used to think of them as an authority, considering their recommendations dictate the diets served in the hospital and the teaching given by the diabetes educator. I'm over it. I don't know how the diabetes educator did her job with a straight face (she personally ate a mostly ketogenic diet).0 -
My T1D daughter has been hospitalized with DKA several times over the last few years and she can't eat anything at all until they get blood sugar down and the acidosis is cleared up. Which I understand, but as soon as she can eat, she gets to choose from sandwiches, pasta, potatoes and fruit from the diabetes menu. The last time she was more low carb minded and stayed away from the carbs just eating a salad and meats but they told her she needed to order a certain amount of carbs. She did but threw it away. I bought her beef jerky from the vending machine to help feel more satisfied.
She was always so hungry during that time when she couldn't eat, so I would sneak her cheese and meat. Her blood sugar or other markers were never affected by that food. These patients could be allowed to eat and not be forced to go hungry if they were held to strict zero carb standards during that time. Kinda sad.4 -
-
The www.davita.com site for diabetes and related diseases all push the 30-50 carbs per meal.. with hundreds of higher carb recipes!
After I successfully lost weight on LCHF (and accidentally/temporarily had increased my potassium..a no no for kidney patients) I was forced to see a renal RD who stupidly insisted I eat 50 carbs per meal "So I wouldn't get hungry and break my diet"…she paid ZERO attention to the fact I wasn't hungry..her advise was to walk 4x as MUCH as I was doing ( I was using a walker/cane due to injury at the time I saw her, she totally, blindly ignored ABILITY, and decided I needed to "move more" to lose faster.
So yeah,I am done with unenlightened medical/nutrition staff. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TEACH ANYTHING BUT THE USDA "Healthy plate"*… and exercise a lot more….period.
*Apparently millions of our tax dollars were spent on changing from the pyramid to the plate so ignorant Americans can grasp a more dumbed down idea. ( But look at the terms on the 'plate'… everything identified is real foods..EXCEPT for "protein"..since there is protein in veggies and ALL the other foods SHOWN besides meat ...HOW is this any more clear? And by looking at the rough 25% division pie slice shapes HOW is it clear to eat 45-65% CARBS? How can anyone think this is more understandable?
MUCH better to use this one:
4 -
@KETOGENICGURL - What you describe is light years beyond ridiculous.KETOGENICGURL wrote: »The www.davita.com site for diabetes and related diseases all push the 30-50 carbs per meal.. with hundreds of higher carb recipes!
After I successfully lost weight on LCHF (and accidentally/temporarily had increased my potassium..a no no for kidney patients) I was forced to see a renal RD who stupidly insisted I eat 50 carbs per meal "So I wouldn't get hungry and break my diet"…she paid ZERO attention to the fact I wasn't hungry..her advise was to walk 4x as MUCH as I was doing ( I was using a walker/cane due to injury at the time I saw her, she totally, blindly ignored ABILITY, and decided I needed to "move more" to lose faster.
So yeah,I am done with unenlightened medical/nutrition staff. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TEACH ANYTHING BUT THE USDA "Healthy plate"*… and exercise a lot more….period.
Many of us here are living, breathing, walking, running, cartwheeling PROOF that LCHF is effective for some people at some junctures of their lives.
It's no mystery that there are enormous variations in response to food intake among the universe of people overweight enough to consider a weight-loss program. Even among folks with compromised pancreas function (endocrine or exocrine, or both, take your pick), there are vast individual differences.
But noooo..... prominent authorities (AHA, ADA, Mayo, WebMD, Consumer Reports, etc.) prod us dogmatically in a single direction that is plainly harmful to many of us.
If medicine were so simple, we'd all be in good hands with the simple health care systems envisioned by great thinkers of our day....
0 -
I think in some ways it comforts people to not be told they have to change their diets. I have so many family members suffering from various things from obesity to diabetes to auto immune and IBS. I have pleaded with them just to start by giving up wheat and see if they improve.. Just. One. Thing. And they won't do it. I am so glad I took my health into my own hands when I did. I can't rely on the sickcare industry and and big business of any kind for my life and well being. But when you speak to much sense you get written off as some sort of tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Whatever. I'm just glad to being more people into the fold when I can.4
-
tinywonder25 wrote: »I think in some ways it comforts people to not be told they have to change their diets. I have so many family members suffering from various things from obesity to diabetes to auto immune and IBS. I have pleaded with them just to start by giving up wheat and see if they improve.. Just. One. Thing. And they won't do it. I am so glad I took my health into my own hands when I did. I can't rely on the sickcare industry and and big business of any kind for my life and well being. But when you speak to much sense you get written off as some sort of tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Whatever. I'm just glad to being more people into the fold when I can.
Even going on insulin, which "scared" my mother in law wasn't enough to get her to actually make changes.
0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »tinywonder25 wrote: »I think in some ways it comforts people to not be told they have to change their diets. I have so many family members suffering from various things from obesity to diabetes to auto immune and IBS. I have pleaded with them just to start by giving up wheat and see if they improve.. Just. One. Thing. And they won't do it. I am so glad I took my health into my own hands when I did. I can't rely on the sickcare industry and and big business of any kind for my life and well being. But when you speak to much sense you get written off as some sort of tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Whatever. I'm just glad to being more people into the fold when I can.
Even going on insulin, which "scared" my mother in law wasn't enough to get her to actually make changes.
ggrrrr that's beyond frustrating 0 -
Medical costs are so high, testing is done at the topmost basic level until there is a flagged issue and then, more in-depth testing MIGHT be done before pills are handed out.
But think about a glass of water with 1" layer of oil on top. If my test was only 1/2" into the glass, I might conclude that it was a glass of oil.2 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »tinywonder25 wrote: »I think in some ways it comforts people to not be told they have to change their diets. I have so many family members suffering from various things from obesity to diabetes to auto immune and IBS. I have pleaded with them just to start by giving up wheat and see if they improve.. Just. One. Thing. And they won't do it. I am so glad I took my health into my own hands when I did. I can't rely on the sickcare industry and and big business of any kind for my life and well being. But when you speak to much sense you get written off as some sort of tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. Whatever. I'm just glad to being more people into the fold when I can.
Even going on insulin, which "scared" my mother in law wasn't enough to get her to actually make changes.
I'm sure the same will be true for my sister. Insulin is just a matter of time for her. And not very much time either... I'm betting within a few months...
She still won't simply stop drinking soda. Just. One. Thing. It's mind blowing to me.
I was talking to my daughter about it. I said "If I had a crippling disease and someone told me that all I had to do was eat a spoonful of horse *kitten* once a day, to cure it, I would totally do it! She agreed. So I really don't understand the idea of simply stopping eating certain foods that make your condition worse.1 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »I was talking to my daughter about it. I said "If I had a crippling disease and someone told me that all I had to do was eat a spoonful of horse *kitten* once a day, to cure it, I would totally do it! She agreed. So I really don't understand the idea of simply stopping eating certain foods that make your condition worse.
I know your daughter has paid heavy dues for her wisdom, but she did herself a great favor picking a smart and supportive maternal element. Congrats on raising a kid with such good judgment!
0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »I was talking to my daughter about it. I said "If I had a crippling disease and someone told me that all I had to do was eat a spoonful of horse *kitten* once a day, to cure it, I would totally do it! She agreed. So I really don't understand the idea of simply stopping eating certain foods that make your condition worse.
I know your daughter has paid heavy dues for her wisdom, but she did herself a great favor picking a smart and supportive maternal element. Congrats on raising a kid with such good judgment!
Thanks! She has been impressing me lately!
Can you imagine giving that choice to a cancer patient or a diabetic who's about to lose a leg? "Eat this spoonful of poo once a day and poof! Cancer is gone!" Or "Diabetes is gone and your leg is healthy again!" I'd figure out a way to get it down! The pay off is too good. It's a no brainer to me!
But tell someone like my sister to switch to diet soda... "Ewwwwww! It tastes bad!"
1 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Amen sister!PaleoInScotland wrote: »@aqsylvester The statement is misleading for a number of reasons and it doesn't help that they've lumped T1 and T2 together.
T1 diabetes definitely isn't caused by sugar.
That's constantly infuriating to see. It doesn't do either condition any good to have things constantly confused.
I don't see that they have lumped T1 and T2 together in the statement, aside from that they mention both in the same paragraph. However, these are 2 totally different diseases with totally different pathways. I have always suggested that they need to rename T1 to something that can't possibly be confused with the more common T2. It's the only way that T1's will stop hearing things like "But you're not fat." Also, many people know that a person can have more than 1 disease at the same time, but there is a common misconception that T1 and T2 are both just forms of a single disease (they are not... they are completely separate diseases). This misunderstanding makes it very difficult for someone like me who has both T1 and T2 because so few people can comprehend this (including some GP's I've encountered). So... they should rename type 1 diabetes to something totally different.0 -
Another thing about genetics:
-T1 is caused by 2 factors, which the ADA properly explains. To get T1, someone must have the problem HLA genes on chromosome 6 AND they must have a trigger for the auto-immune response.
-T2 is almost always insulin resistance. In some rare cases, T2 patients really don't make enough insulin (they don't make as much as they would need if they used it efficiently). For those rare cases, a clear genetic link exists. For the much more common metabolic problem, there is no definitive genetic link. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence, but it is a common problem and most of us have lots of relatives, so we are bound to find a few with diabetes. Unlike T1 (and unlike the few with T2 that really don't make enough), no gene has been found that actually causes T2. The ADA needs to stop kidding itself and admit that it is an obesity disease.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Another thing about genetics:
-T1 is caused by 2 factors, which the ADA properly explains. To get T1, someone must have the problem HLA genes on chromosome 6 AND they must have a trigger for the auto-immune response.
-T2 is almost always insulin resistance. In some rare cases, T2 patients really don't make enough insulin (they don't make as much as they would need if they used it efficiently). For those rare cases, a clear genetic link exists. For the much more common metabolic problem, there is no definitive genetic link. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence, but it is a common problem and most of us have lots of relatives, so we are bound to find a few with diabetes. Unlike T1 (and unlike the few with T2 that really don't make enough), no gene has been found that actually causes T2. The ADA needs to stop kidding itself and admit that it is an obesity disease.
I tend to think that T2 the way you describe as not making enough insulin even if they were fully insulin sensitive, is probably LADA in most if not all cases. I bet they would find antibodies in those people.
Renaming would eventually help to differentiate but it would probably be more confusing for a while for most people.
I think because insulin resistance so commonly unknown to most people and pretty much ignored until a T2 diagnosis is made, that renaming T2 to Insulin Resistant Metabolic Syndrome... Something that makes the connection clear would be hugely beneficial.
There was a campaign a few years ago by some group to rename T1 to Auto Immune Diabetes. Which makes more sense to me.
Maybe if that were adopted, T2 would be better identified as Insulin Resistant Diabetes...??? Most people think T2 don't make insulin because you always hear they don't make enough insulin... But in actuality they make too much insulin but to no avail since the cells are so resistant. At least until the pancreas is so fatty that the insulin production is actually blocked... Then there's not as much insulin...
I think in cases where the beta cells die, it's more likely to be LADA
And in cases like yours, wouldn't it make more sense to just say T1D with insulin resistance? Or Auto Immune Diabetes with Insulin Resistance? Saying you have both types just seems like a lazy diagnosis. Lol
And to be honest, lazy diagnoses is how so many get diagnosed wrong all the time. Even doctors are confused about which symptoms typically go with which condition. They are not all interchangeable.2 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »I was talking to my daughter about it. I said "If I had a crippling disease and someone told me that all I had to do was eat a spoonful of horse *kitten* once a day, to cure it, I would totally do it! She agreed. So I really don't understand the idea of simply stopping eating certain foods that make your condition worse.
I know your daughter has paid heavy dues for her wisdom, but she did herself a great favor picking a smart and supportive maternal element. Congrats on raising a kid with such good judgment!
Thanks! She has been impressing me lately!
Can you imagine giving that choice to a cancer patient or a diabetic who's about to lose a leg? "Eat this spoonful of poo once a day and poof! Cancer is gone!" Or "Diabetes is gone and your leg is healthy again!" I'd figure out a way to get it down! The pay off is too good. It's a no brainer to me!
But tell someone like my sister to switch to diet soda... "Ewwwwww! It tastes bad!"
Your choice of horse manure for your dear daughter to chew on was rather restrained, I must say. We'd all (er, almost all...) go to more distant extremes, if necessary.
0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Another thing about genetics:
-T1 is caused by 2 factors, which the ADA properly explains. To get T1, someone must have the problem HLA genes on chromosome 6 AND they must have a trigger for the auto-immune response.
-T2 is almost always insulin resistance. In some rare cases, T2 patients really don't make enough insulin (they don't make as much as they would need if they used it efficiently). For those rare cases, a clear genetic link exists. For the much more common metabolic problem, there is no definitive genetic link. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence, but it is a common problem and most of us have lots of relatives, so we are bound to find a few with diabetes. Unlike T1 (and unlike the few with T2 that really don't make enough), no gene has been found that actually causes T2. The ADA needs to stop kidding itself and admit that it is an obesity disease.
I tend to think that T2 the way you describe as not making enough insulin even if they were fully insulin sensitive, is probably LADA in most if not all cases. I bet they would find antibodies in those people.
Renaming would eventually help to differentiate but it would probably be more confusing for a while for most people.
I think because insulin resistance so commonly unknown to most people and pretty much ignored until a T2 diagnosis is made, that renaming T2 to Insulin Resistant Metabolic Syndrome... Something that makes the connection clear would be hugely beneficial.
There was a campaign a few years ago by some group to rename T1 to Auto Immune Diabetes. Which makes more sense to me.
Maybe if that were adopted, T2 would be better identified as Insulin Resistant Diabetes...??? Most people think T2 don't make insulin because you always hear they don't make enough insulin... But in actuality they make too much insulin but to no avail since the cells are so resistant. At least until the pancreas is so fatty that the insulin production is actually blocked... Then there's not as much insulin...
I think in cases where the beta cells die, it's more likely to be LADA
And in cases like yours, wouldn't it make more sense to just say T1D with insulin resistance? Or Auto Immune Diabetes with Insulin Resistance? Saying you have both types just seems like a lazy diagnosis. Lol
And to be honest, lazy diagnoses is how so many get diagnosed wrong all the time. Even doctors are confused about which symptoms typically go with which condition. They are not all interchangeable.
LADA is type 1 with adult onset. It should be called type 1 until a new name is made. The type 2 I'm talking about is a rare situation where no auto-immune response happens and no beta cells are killed. It also isn't an uptake / efficiency issue... They just do not make enough insulin.
Type 1 should be called something that does not have the word "diabetes" in the name at all.
In my case, I was diagnosed as type 1 long before anti-body tests were available. Symptoms clearly showed I was type 1 and I definitely am type 1. Immediately upon diagnosis, that was handled by an endocrinologist. I gained 20 lbs. in the first month, doubled my weight in the first year, and continued to gain weight beyond that. It wasn't / isn't unusual for type 1's to gain weight (back then, it was an even bigger issue because treatment wasn't as advanced). But it was unusual to gain as fast. Anyway, after a few years, I was showing serious signs of insulin resistance. The endocrinologist didn't want to diagnose with type 2 without a lot of testing. So she did an inpatient study for 2 days to determine exactly how resistant to insulin I was (I think she didn't believe I was taking as much insulin as I said I was and was always high - she probably suspected I was skipping shots or something). Anyway, after that, she made a diagnosis of type 2 (in addition to type 1). It definitely was not a lazy diagnosis.0 -
I just listened to Dr Eric Westmans presentation on The Disbetes Summit and right toward the end he comments about the lumping together of T1D and T2D being a problem and mentions that insulin shouldn't have been given to T2D back in the day because their problem is too much insulin. So why give them more?
Big pharma... That's why. Stick that band-aid on there! That'll hold ya! For a minute!
http://thediabetessummit.com/froiaa/
And that literally explains the lumping together doesn't it? The insulin connection?0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »I just listened to Dr Eric Westmans presentation on The Disbetes Summit and right toward the end he comments about the lumping together of T1D and T2D being a problem and mentions that insulin shouldn't have been given to T2D back in the day because their problem is too much insulin. So why give them more?
Big pharma... That's why. Stick that band-aid on there! That'll hold ya! For a minute!
http://thediabetessummit.com/froiaa/
And that literally explains the lumping together doesn't it? The insulin connection?
Insulin is a temporary treatment and sometimes is needed for type 2's. But then they forget or don't care about the needed long-term treatment quite often.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »I just listened to Dr Eric Westmans presentation on The Disbetes Summit and right toward the end he comments about the lumping together of T1D and T2D being a problem and mentions that insulin shouldn't have been given to T2D back in the day because their problem is too much insulin. So why give them more?
Big pharma... That's why. Stick that band-aid on there! That'll hold ya! For a minute!
http://thediabetessummit.com/froiaa/
And that literally explains the lumping together doesn't it? The insulin connection?
Insulin is a temporary treatment and sometimes is needed for type 2's. But then they forget or don't care about the needed long-term treatment quite often.
I get that it's sometimes needed, but I think part of that reason is because they wait until A1C is so high to consider doing anything and by then, other concerns start showing up and it's a matter of get it down ASAP, not necessarily get it down in the most healthful way for your longevity. But if insulin resistance were much better recognized and treated properly from the beginning, things would be entirely different.
I'm just basing all of this off of how my sister has been treated all along. It was years ago when she was symptomatic of insulin resistance. It showed up as hypoglycemia from the high insulin. Her treatment, "eat more often and eat carbs."
Well... That just made her fully T2..1
