this is some good socialist **** right here

[David G]

Hahahahahahaaaaaa.... My Dr told me I was ONE of hundreds of his patients that completely changed his habits and is taking an active role in his treatment plan outside of popping pills. And I waver all of the time . . . Effing unicorns and rainbows.

Yes, I'm discovering... late in life... that I have some developing allergies. Suspicion is it's the same suite of issues my dad suffered from most of his life. Early days yet, but the issue arises. If this diagnosis is correct... do I just pop the pills, or do I aim for an attack involving maybe some diet changes, maybe a less cluttered more dust-free house, maybe a different sort of exercise regimen, etc. In the very short term, the only thing I know is true is that taking a very low dosage of antihystemine for the last few days has made for a substantial improvement. The other thing is... I am very much against the too-standard Western Medicine approach: take a pill; side-effects develop; take a pill for the side-effects; next round of side-effects manifest; take two more pills for those side-effects... etc. My MD is sympathetic, so we'll move forward from there...

[WI-Tom]

Hahahahahahaaaaaa.... My Dr told me I was ONE of hundreds of his patients that completely changed his habits and is taking an active role in his treatment plan outside of popping pills. And I waver all of the time . . . Effing unicorns and rainbows.

As I posted earlier, two years ago my sister was diabetic. She isn't diabetic anymore. I'm not saying it's true in every case of Type II diabetes, but it most definitely IS reversible for some, maybe many, maybe most. Limiting sugar/carb intake to rebuild insulin sensitivity and avoiding foods that trigger an insulin response is the key. The science is pretty clear on this. The federal food pyramid guidelines have been malpractice on an immense scale.

We regulate alcohol and cigarettes. Sugar is deadlier.

Tom

[Ted Hoppe]

Blame it on Rachael Ray.

Rachael Ray has food issues and allergies. You physically can see her bloat and illness. She no longer is a role model she once was.
She is quickly becoming the role model of where most americans are.

[Paul Pless]

rachel ray was never a role model for me

[Joe (SoCal)]

All of them are diabetic.
None are fat or live an unhealthy lifestyle and could be a roll model for most of us.

[Ted Hoppe]

All of them are diabetic.
None are fat or live an unhealthy lifestyle and could be a roll model for most of us.

All anomalies and marketing crap Joe. Most folks with pre diabetes can be controlled with simple changes in diet and food choices. Promoting these anomalies, those celebrities who are paid for their endorsements to use medicine is counter productive and works to rewrite the better choices people can make. You do not know their history and food choices they make. Just because they are high profile does not mean they are making the better choices even with photos of them looking beautiful or doing physical activities. Many folks can not stop eating bread from harmful grains or avoiding sugar because that is what is easy and cheap to eat. Who does not like to eat sugar? It is far easier to talk about pharma treatments and promote medical interventions because it is a money trail to profits with few reworking their lives getting off that train.

I also remember watching my great grandmother getting fingers, toes and limbs hacked off from diabetes. She owned the best bakeries in NYC and could not help herself when it came to treats. I also have precursors for diabetes. I have to be careful not to fall in to it. Most people should if they have glucose problems.


More to the point - Why is diabetes happening in the first place. We are what we eat. We develop illnesses and physiological responses by the exposures and choices we make. Our food quality and what we eat has changed - there is no doubt about that now. It is the reason why most of the population is fat, lacking in energy and dimmed mentally.

[George Jung]

As usual, Ted, you're passionate, 'partly right' but - mostly wrong. We've had this conversation before.

Be well!

[Ted Hoppe]

As usual, Ted, you're passionate, 'partly right' but - mostly wrong. We've had this conversation before.

Be well!

I respect you very much. But you cant just drop you are right partially but...

please tell us why western folks are fatter than ever and diabetes in growing numbers of the US, Australian and British population developing the disease. Surely is diet related.

[George Jung]

wish I had time, Ted - but I'm seeing highly-compliant, thin but diabetic pt's today!

But we've had this conversation before - and you weren't convinced then, either.

[Keith Wilson]

The price vs production cost of insulin is one question. The effect of lifestyle on the prevalence of diabetes is another; entirely different, and only marginally related.

[Ralphie Boy]

\An observation. I've just had a guest here from Texas, she has severe digestive issues, has to be dairy and gluten free, and is so traumatised by some of the problems that food has caused that she was going to try and bring enough food here to NZ from her home, to keep her for a month.
I persuaded her that we could in fact provide suitable nourishment so she didnt have issues with customs.

She was here, with friends, for a month, ended up eating a lot of foods that back home would have made her very sick, and had no issues whatsoever.

I find that very telling.

John Welsford

My gut instinct says the same, John. When most of the wheat in our country (to choose but one example) has been exposed to Glyphosate, you wonder if it is the food itself that is poisoning our society.

[Joe (SoCal)]

All anomalies and marketing crap Joe. Most folks with pre diabetes can be controlled with simple changes in diet and food choices. Promoting these anomalies, those celebrities who are paid for their endorsements to use medicine is counter productive and works to rewrite the better choices people can make. You do not know their history and food choices they make. Just because they are high profile does not mean they are making the better choices even with photos of them looking beautiful or doing physical activities. Many folks can not stop eating bread from harmful grains or avoiding sugar because that is what is easy and cheap to eat. Who does not like to eat sugar? It is far easier to talk about pharma treatments and promote medical interventions because it is a money trail to profits with few reworking their lives getting off that train.

I also remember watching my great grandmother getting fingers, toes and limbs hacked off from diabetes. She owned the best bakeries in NYC and could not help herself when it came to treats. I also have precursors for diabetes. I have to be careful not to fall in to it. Most people should if they have glucose problems.


More to the point - Why is diabetes happening in the first place. We are what we eat. We develop illnesses and physiological responses by the exposures and choices we make. Our food quality and what we eat has changed - there is no doubt about that now. It is the reason why most of the population is fat, lacking in energy and dimmed mentally.

Is my Friends girlfriend an anomaly?
Shes a diabetic

DDC37832-0D38-4F76-8E22-B76F45C5AA6C.jpg

[Steve McMahon]

How about we fix the quality of food, diets, encourage physical movement and discourage obesity so people don't get diabetes as easily?

That would be progress. Yeah - medicine is the cheap, fast fix in a world you can not criticize real reason why diabetes happens.

your comment is correct but way out of context I’m afraid.
Type 1 diabetics (my wife for 52 years now, since she was 11) have no control over their requirement for insulin, which is the topic of the op.
Type 2 diabetics for the most part are diabetics because of unhealthy living and many or perhaps most of them are not on insulin, or very little insulin. Pills are the normal treatment, not insulin.

I have 32 years of experience dealing with my wife’s disease and also 20 years with my son who is also a type 1 since he was 7 years old. Both obviously insulin dependant. My knowledge of type 2 is much more limited.

[Joe (SoCal)]

differences between type 1 and type 2 diabetes



The main difference between the type 1 and type 2 diabetes is that type 1 diabetes is a genetic condition that often shows up early in life, and type 2 is mainly lifestyle-related and develops over time. With type 1 diabetes, your immune system is attacking and destroying the insulin-producing cells in your pancreas.

Although type 1 and type 2 diabetes both have things in common, there are lots of differences. Like what causes them, who they affect, and how you should manage them.

Some people get confused between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. This can mean you have to explain that what works for one type doesn't work for the other, and that there are different causes.

The main thing to remember is that both are as serious as each other. Having high blood glucose (or sugar) levels can lead to serious health complications, no matter whether you have type 1 or type 2 diabetes. So if you have either condition, you need to take the right steps to manage it.

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/diabetes...our%20pancreas.

[Ted Hoppe]

Is my Friends girlfriend an anomaly?
Shes a diabetic

DDC37832-0D38-4F76-8E22-B76F45C5AA6C.jpg

Yes she is comparatively if she is diabetic 1.

More than 37 million Americans have diabetes (about 1 in 10), and approximately 90-95% of them have type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes most often develops in people over age 45, but more and more children, teens, and young adults are also developing it.

According to the Cleveland Clinic:

Type 2 Diabetes

If you have Type 2 diabetes, your body’s cells can’t properly take up sugar (glucose) from the foods you eat. If left untreated, Type 2 diabetes can cause such health problems as heart disease, kidney disease and stroke. You can manage this disease by making lifestyle changes, taking medications and/or insulin and seeing your provider for regular check-ins.

[McMike]

As I posted earlier, two years ago my sister was diabetic. She isn't diabetic anymore. I'm not saying it's true in every case of Type III diabetes, but it most definitely IS reversible for some, maybe many, maybe most. Limiting sugar/carb intake to rebuild insulin sensitivity and avoiding foods that trigger an insulin response is the key. The science is pretty clear on this. The federal food pyramid guidelines have been malpractice on an immense scale.

We regulate alcohol and cigarettes. Sugar is deadlier.

Tom

No offense but I've been told by doctors that there is no cure for Type 2. I'm not familiar with Type III but there is a lot of old information that is bad and refuses to die, like the ADA (American Diabetes Association) claims 120 grams of carbs daily is acceptable, but If I ate to that number, I'd be on at least one other medication. On the other hand, there is a lot of bullsh17 surrounding the idea that you can cure it or reverse it, you can't. Some, very few, can put it into remission, lose weight and eat a very strict diet, exercise, but it didn't work for me. So your sister my have had another issue that presented itself as T2D, but it wasn't T2D if she's "cured".

The federal Food pyramid should be grounds for the largest lawsuit in world history. Processed sugar is poison for EVERYONE. Salt, fat, and sugar is a drug that has been engineered to create addicts. I'm an addict and struggle with it every day.

[LOKI]

Had a workmate that I had to travel with who was diabetic. Was quite a rotund fellow, told by his doctor to lose weight or ready his will. Decided to follow docs advice and with a medically planned diet lost almost half his weight. No longer diabetic, only downside was he almost bled to death internally as his heart doctor didn't know of his weight loss and didn't change his warferin dose for his blood clots. I hope that I can claim some points here as he was absolutely grey one day after I hadn't seen him for a few weeks (shift change). He went to his doc that day and that was when they discovered the misdosage...

[WI-Tom]

The price vs production cost of insulin is one question. The effect of lifestyle on the prevalence of diabetes is another; entirely different, and only marginally related.

I have to disagree on that. The idea that Type II diabetes is potentially reversible for some (maybe many), and that the medical establishment continues to rely on insulin rather than teaching people how to make changes that could restore their insulin sensitivity and make them non-diabetic, is HUGELY significant, and directly related.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

No offense but I've been told by doctors that there is no cure for Type 2. I'm not familiar with Type III

Oops! The "type III" was a typo--I mean type II.

On the other hand, there is a lot of bullsh17 surrounding the idea that you can cure it or reverse it, you can't. Some, very few, can put it into remission, lose weight and eat a very strict diet, exercise, but it didn't work for me. So your sister my have had another issue that presented itself as T2D, but it wasn't T2D if she's "cured".

The federal Food pyramid should be grounds for the largest lawsuit in world history. Processed sugar is poison for EVERYONE. Salt, fat, and sugar is a drug that has been engineered to create addicts. I'm an addict and struggle with it every day.

Mike,

even diabetes organizations and medical institutions acknowledge "remission"--remission that they say is not a "cure" because "symptoms can return"--like this from WebMD:

there's always a chance that symptoms will return. But it's possible for some people to go years without trouble controlling their glucose and the health concerns that come with diabetes.

Well, of course symptoms might return. Because type II diabetes starts with a decrease in insulin sensitivity. That decrease is caused by over-consumption of carbohydrates, which cause a spike in insulin production. Eat that way consistently, and--like a junkie chasing a high--the body has to produce more and more insulin to get the same effect (lowered blood sugar). Eventually the body can no longer make enough insulin on its own.

When you reverse diabetes through diet, the reversal could end--if you start over-consuming carbs again. To say type II diabetes is not reversible because of that is like saying a broken arm can never be cured, because there's always a risk that it might break again; it's only in remission.

I agree totally on the food pyramid guidelines. 120g of carbs every day is nuts. Most people would be far healthier at 1/3 of that, or less.

Now, it may well be that the earlier people make changes, the more effective reversing diabetes could be. The time to eat less carbs is not when you're a full-blown diabetic, but long before. But insulin sensitivity can absolutely be rebuilt through diet.

Tom

[Keith Wilson]

I have to disagree on that. The idea that Type II diabetes is potentially reversible for some (maybe many), and that the medical establishment continues to rely on insulin rather than teaching people how to make changes that could restore their insulin sensitivity and make them non-diabetic, is HUGELY significant, and directly related.

Sorry, Tom; on this one you're just wrong. The ratio of production cost to price of insulin has little or nothing to do with the relationship of type II diabetes to behavior. Insulin has been sold at a gigantic multiple of its actual cost of production because companies want to make lots of money, and because they can.

[L.W. Baxter]

on the other hand, isn't type 2 diabetes heritable?

insulin treatments have been saving lives for a century now. is it not possible that insulin itself has caused an increase in type 2 diabetes?

i hope this is not an offensive idea.

[Keith Wilson]

On the other hand, isn't type 2 diabetes heritable? Insulin treatments have been saving lives for a century now. is it not possible that insulin itself has caused an increase in type 2 diabetes? I hope this is not an offensive idea.

If one is offended by reality, tough. Sure; if people with heritable conditions that would otherwise kill them live to reproduce because of medical treatment, the frequency of those genes in the population may increase. Better than the alternatives, I'd say. Eventually we may be able to modify the genes directedly, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

[George Jung]

I have to disagree on that. The idea that Type II diabetes is potentially reversible for some (maybe many), and that the medical establishment continues to rely on insulin rather than teaching people how to make changes that could restore their insulin sensitivity and make them non-diabetic, is HUGELY significant, and directly related.

Tom

Usually, you're pretty good. On this? Not so much.

I take exception to your ' the medical establishment continues to rely on insulin rather than teaching people how to make changes that could restore their insulin sensitivity and make them non-diabetic, is HUGELY significant, and directly related.'.

No. 'The medical establishment' does not. But short of duct-taping you, and your 'ilk' to a 2 X 4 and 'making' you do lifestyle changes, 'we' don't have many options short of meds. And btw... it's the odd duck that is DMII and goes directly to insulin.

Passion without correct information is inflammatory, and pretty much useless.

[Paul Pless]

Usually, you're pretty good. On this? Not so much.

lol

[George Jung]

That decrease is caused by over-consumption of carbohydrates, which cause a spike in insulin production. Eat that way consistently, and--like a junkie chasing a high--the body has to produce more and more insulin to get the same effect (lowered blood sugar). Eventually the body can no longer make enough insulin on its own.

Tom

Perhaps you can link to your literature - I'm unfamiliar with that scenario .

[L.W. Baxter]

If one is offended by reality, tough. Sure; if people with heritable conditions that would otherwise kill them live to reproduce because of medical treatment, the frequency of those genes in the population may increase. Better than the alternatives, I'd say. Eventually we may be able to modify the genes directedly, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

well, there is widening disconnect in many realms of inquiry and understanding, between what we discover through science and factual analysis, and what we insist on in public discourse.

i am all for accurate understanding even when it may be stigmatizing. i remain very much opposed to stigmatizing via inaccurate understanding or speculative maundering.

despite our understanding that diabetes is a genetic condition, and that increased survival of a gene means increased prevalence in any population, we have non-diabetics insisting that their own lifestyle and willpower (virtue) is what keeps them non-diabetic. and diabetics insisting that food is poison, foisted on us by our corporate overlords.

i tend to think of the increasing expression of diabetes in our society as just some **** that happens. personal agency has very little to do with it.

but then, i consider the self, agency, and free will, to be illusion. that is what an accurate understanding of science shows us.

[Ted Hoppe]

Look how quickly the forum turns on people who suggest there is other ways beyond paid medicine.
I am reminded how many here thought that the Covid vaccine was the answer to not getting covid. Only to change their tune when hearing how folks with the shot still got covid. Then found it was reasonable to say that the vaccine could save your life if you got sick.

[Keith Wilson]

Despite our understanding that diabetes is a genetic condition, and that increased survival of a gene means increased prevalence in any population, we have non-diabetics insisting that their own lifestyle and willpower (virtue) is what keeps them non-diabetic. and diabetics insisting that food is poison, foisted on us by our corporate overlords..

Indeed; I agree about 95%. I expect that there's some truth to the idea that we evolved under conditions where food was often scarce, sugary stuff was available only intermittently, if at all, and that may not work so well under current conditions where we can eat as much as we want of almost anything.

[L.W. Baxter]

Look how quickly the forum turns on people who suggest there is other ways beyond paid medicine.
I am reminded how many here thought that the Covid vaccine was the answer to not getting covid. Only to change their tune when hearing how folks with the shot still got covid.

look how quickly you take argument for persecution.

i am reminded how...well, too many recent cultural phenomena to list.

[Paul Pless]

I am reminded how many here thought that the Covid vaccine was the answer to not getting covid. Only to change their tune when hearing how folks with the shot still got covid.

that's not quite true

most reasonable folks saw (and continue to see) vaccinations as one (quite strong in this case) tool in the campaign against a disease
vaccination (with one of the american vaccines) clearly reduces the spread of covid through the larger population, the likelyhood of getting covid as an individual, and the severity of the illness if one does contract covid

[L.W. Baxter]

Indeed; I agree about 95%. I expect that there's some truth to the idea that we evolved under conditions where food was often scarce, sugary stuff was available only intermittently, if at all, and that may not work so well under current conditions where we can eat as much as we want of almost anything.

here's an idea to ponder.

we all know people who can overeat and not gain weight. which means they are, in fact, particularly inefficient at storing energy. that is another gene or gene set that may be finding more widespread expression only because of modern surpluses.

[Ted Hoppe]

That is revisionist history Paul. Pull up the early threads.

Many thought the vaccines were inoculations against the disease. Some still do.

[Nicholas Carey]

Indeed; I agree about 95%. I expect that there's some truth to the idea that we evolved under conditions where food was often scarce, sugary stuff was available only intermittently, if at all, and that may not work so well under current conditions where we can eat as much as we want of almost anything.

Historically, obesity and diseases like diabetes and gout were the domain of the wealthy, who could afford the simple refined carbohydrates and fatty rich foods.

Now,it's the other way around: they're [largely] diseases of the poor, who can't afford anything but simple, refined carbohydrates and fatty rich foods.

[George Jung]

Ted, you're a 'true believer'! On this particular topic, you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.

That's unfortunate.

[Ted Hoppe]

Some people in this thread have gone as far as to call this virture signaling. Is the CDC virtue signaling?

https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/prediabetes.html

Prediabetes – Your Chance to Prevent Type 2 Diabetes

Español (Spanish) | Print
What Is Prediabetes?


Prediabetes is a serious health condition where blood sugar levels are higher than normal, but not high enough yet to be diagnosed as type 2 diabetes. Approximately 96 million American adults—more than 1 in 3—have prediabetes. Of those with prediabetes, more than 80% don’t know they have it. Prediabetes puts you at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and stroke.
The good news is that if you have prediabetes, the CDC-led National Diabetes Prevention Program can help you make lifestyle changes to prevent or delay type 2 diabetes and other serious health problems.