Diabetes prevention

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:36 am

United States

For at least 20 years, diabetes rates in North America have been increasing substantially. In 2010 nearly 26 million people have diabetes in the United States alone, from those 7 million people remain undiagnosed. Another 57 million people are estimated to have pre-diabetes.

The Centers for Disease Control has termed the change an epidemic. The National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse estimates that diabetes costs $132 billion in the United States alone every year. About 5%–10% of diabetes cases in North America are type 1, with the rest being type 2. The fraction of type 1 in other parts of the world differs. Most of this difference is not currently understood.[1] The American Diabetes Association cite the 2003 assessment of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) that 1 in 3 Americans born after 2000 will develop diabetes in their lifetime.

According to the American Diabetes Association, approximately 18.3% (8.6 million) of Americans age 60 and older have diabetes. Diabetes mellitus prevalence increases with age, and the numbers of older persons with diabetes are expected to grow as the elderly population increases in number. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) demonstrated that, in the population over 65 years old, 18% to 20% have diabetes, with 40% having either diabetes or its precursor form of impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes mellitus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[emphasis is entirely mine]

[1] tedhutchinson had quoted something regarding this stating "The unnecessary fear of natural food has inadvertently caused us to eat more of the new food that can make us hungrier, make us eat more, make us fat." which I'd say is true. http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/diabe ... n-use.html

So what is it about America and her undying,

or dying, need to eat these cheap foods that "make us hungrier, make us eat more, make us fat"? Convenience? Good advertising? Ignorance?

All of the above!

So, with knowing the statistics, as shown above, then why couldn't one rationalize the situation and logically conclude that the short term monetary saving associated with buying cheaper foods in actuality is the more costly strategy in the long term by medical costs from the ensuing diabetes?

Coupled with a complete lack of desire to get outside and exercise along with these fast food conglomerations of pure and utter garbage(Has anyone honestly smelled the back dumpster of one of these places?) it's no surprise to anyone why America is considered fat!

Does anyone here eat from fast food chains?

Does anyone know, or care, about what it is they're eating? How does a country come to such a thing?

tabby · Post by **tabby** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:52 am

K.Snyder;1388736 wrote: Diabetes mellitus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[emphasis is entirely mine]

[1] tedhutchinson had quoted something regarding this stating "The unnecessary fear of natural food has inadvertently caused us to eat more of the new food that can make us hungrier, make us eat more, make us fat." which I'd say is true. http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/diabe ... n-use.html

So what is it about America and her undying,

or dying, need to eat these cheap foods that "make us hungrier, make us eat more, make us fat"? Convenience? Good advertising? Ignorance?

All of the above!

So, with knowing the statistics, as shown above, then why couldn't one rationalize the situation and logically conclude that the short term monetary saving associated with buying cheaper foods in actuality is the more costly strategy in the long term by medical costs from the ensuing diabetes?

Coupled with a complete lack of desire to get outside and exercise along with these fast food conglomerations of pure and utter garbage(Has anyone honestly smelled the back dumpster of one of these places?) it's no surprise to anyone why America is considered fat!

Does anyone here eat from fast food chains?

Does anyone know, or care, about what it is they're eating? How does a country come to such a thing?

Yes, I know and care about what I eat and I put a great emphasis on fresh food and little emphasis on packaged food.

I don't think the fast food restaurants were intended to be a major food source, just a quick bite to eat when the occasion calls for it. I seriously doubt that eating a Big Mac two or three times a year will hurt anyone however eating a Big Mac two or three times a week will certainly have a bearing on overall health. I don't see how the fast food chains can be held accountable for lack of judgement on the part of its customers. And I believe all of them also offer salads and lighter meals so it all comes down to individual choice.

I also think that hormones in meat and the genetic modification of some foods have wrecked havoc with the human body in ways that we are only beginning to discover.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:30 am

Type II diabetes is, I assume, what you're referring to. The problem is with what's called simple carbohydrates, that everyone in the medical and science community agrees is the problem. Pretty much any food made from flour such as breads; pasta; cakes; pies;, along with white rice; sweets - including fruits and artificial sweeteners; alcohol and other foods are all simple carbohydrates. Simple carbohydrates digest quickly in the system and cause a rush of insulin into the bloodstream which, along with the carbs convert into fat which the body then stores.

Since the bodies of overweight people are genetically set to behave as I've described above and our current modern life style requires much less in the way of physical activity the fat doesn't burn off. The secret therefore lies in either working out how to operate the switches in the necessary genes to prevent this from occurring with medication or intervening in the development of the fetus or waiting for evolution to run it's course, which would most likely be a pretty long time.

The pre-diabetes you refer to is called Hypoglycemia which is the identifying condition of Type II Diabetes. Hypoglycemia is characterized by symptoms such as a dry mouth or tongue, dizziness, rapid heartbeat, tiredness after consuming simple carbohydrates.

What medical research has learned is that if the carbs are offset by a sufficient amount of protein in the diet the diabetes can be avoided or managed without medication, which more often than not complicate other issues in the body. However, the problem with trying to manage eating with protein is that the carbs create cravings for more carbs, not protein, and most people invariably end up eating more carbs than they should which throws the plan off balance time and again.

There has been recent research which indicates that managing the eating habits of pregnant women better may cause the gene switches that are affected to turn off and in turn solve this problem. The problem there is of course that there are so many competing interests fighting to squash the research because a fit human would mean a decrease in food consumption and sales. Our culture would rather continue to leave things as they are and use this epidemic to create an industry similar to that of the cancer industry where managing the problem through costly therapies and drugs and where more jobs can be created.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:55 am

Rice isn't made from flour.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:07 am

AnneBoleyn;1388743 wrote: Rice isn't made from flour.You're right, I should have just categorized white rice as a simple carb. I'll fix it even though you're a hard ass and don't like that.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:40 am

A couple of years back, a routine blood test showed higher than normal (for me) blood sugar levels. Since my doctor understands the way my mind works, she gave me a prescription for a blood sugar monitor and two pages of links to articles on the dangers of type II diabetes and preventative steps. She also gave me a link to a phone app to log and track blood sugar levels. I was to prick my finger and test at certain times of the day to get data as to when the level was higher than others and make a note of what I had been eating.

It was an interesting and educational experience. Changes in my diet were apparent pretty quickly, as were changes in the way I sat in front of a computer all day.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:41 am

Ahso!;1388745 wrote: You're right, I should have just categorized white rice as a simple carb. I'll fix it even though you're a hard ass and don't like that.

Me? A hard ass? Oh, what can I do to change your mind?

Post by **jones jones** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:56 am

I have Type ll diabetes and I take a blood reading weekly. Just done it a few minutes ago & it's 5.1 ... I take medication but am on no special diet at all.

I have a problem with the diagnosis of Type ll diabetes by GPs after blood tests. I do not know who sets these blood glucose levels nor do I know why these levels keep getting lower.

Does anyone know who sets these blood glucose levels and whether or not this is done by the pharmaceutical industry themselves? The pharmaceutical industry develops, produces, and markets drugs and this is how they make their billions of dollars, pounds whatever.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:10 am

What a lot of parents don't realize is when their kid becomes hyperactive due to sugars and certain foods, the kids are in fact hypoglycemic and need a change in diet, however, when the kid acts out they bring them to the doctors where a diagnosis of hyperactivity or some emotional "disorder" such as ADD is erroneously found and behavior modification drugs are administered.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:10 am

tabby;1388738 wrote: I don't think the fast food restaurants were intended to be a major food source, just a quick bite to eat when the occasion calls for it.

It was intended by the fast food industry, very much so, which goes to prove good advertising and ignorance on behalf of the consumer.

tabby;1388738 wrote: I seriously doubt that eating a Big Mac two or three times a year will hurt anyone however eating a Big Mac two or three times a week will certainly have a bearing on overall health. But "eating a Big Mac two or three times a week" isn't the case for quite alot of people. They eat it every day. Everyday, breakfast, lunch, snack, and dinner. And it's not just the fast food industry it's all of the preservatives and added garbage in grocery stores as well.

I also think that many parents feed their children jarred, processed baby food far past 1 year old as well which influences their preference for crap food. There's no reason children beyond 12 months in age shouldn't eat what their parents eat with few exceptions.

tabby;1388738 wrote:

I don't see how the fast food chains can be held accountable for lack of judgement on the part of its customers. And I believe all of them also offer salads and lighter meals so it all comes down to individual choice. I would much rather see all of the food industry mandated to keep calories and fat from going above a predetermined amount per serving.

tabby;1388738 wrote:

I also think that hormones in meat and the genetic modification of some foods have wrecked havoc with the human body in ways that we are only beginning to discover.

Well, that's because it takes a complete meltdown in order to raise concern and is as equally true in proportion to the relative wealth and complacency of the more rapidly growing economies.

The increase in incidence of diabetes in developing countries follows the trend of urbanization and lifestyle changes, perhaps most importantly a "Western-style" dietDiabetes mellitus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the contrary I'd say such a lack of government intervention in corporations leads to a much higher incidence of the term "epidemic" being used

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:22 am

Ahso!;1388741 wrote: Type II diabetes is, I assume, what you're referring to. The problem is with what's called simple carbohydrates, that everyone in the medical and science community agrees is the problem. Pretty much any food made from flour such as breads; pasta; cakes; pies;, along with white rice; sweets - including fruits and artificial sweeteners; alcohol and other foods are all simple carbohydrates. Simple carbohydrates digest quickly in the system and cause a rush of insulin into the bloodstream which, along with the carbs convert into fat which the body then stores.

Since the bodies of overweight people are genetically set to behave as I've described above and our current modern life style requires much less in the way of physical activity the fat doesn't burn off. The secret therefore lies in either working out how to operate the switches in the necessary genes to prevent this from occurring with medication or intervening in the development of the fetus or waiting for evolution to run it's course, which would most likely be a pretty long time.

The pre-diabetes you refer to is called Hypoglycemia which is the identifying condition of Type II Diabetes. Hypoglycemia is characterized by symptoms such as a dry mouth or tongue, dizziness, rapid heartbeat, tiredness after consuming simple carbohydrates.

What medical research has learned is that if the carbs are offset by a sufficient amount of protein in the diet the diabetes can be avoided or managed without medication, which more often than not complicate other issues in the body. However, the problem with trying to manage eating with protein is that the carbs create cravings for more carbs, not protein, and most people invariably end up eating more carbs than they should which throws the plan off balance time and again.

There has been recent research which indicates that managing the eating habits of pregnant women better may cause the gene switches that are affected to turn off and in turn solve this problem. The problem there is of course that there are so many competing interests fighting to squash the research because a fit human would mean a decrease in food consumption and sales. Our culture would rather continue to leave things as they are and use this epidemic to create an industry similar to that of the cancer industry where managing the problem through costly therapies and drugs and where more jobs can be created.Yes, diabetes mellitus type II is what I'm mostly referring to without going as far to keep those inclined to discuss type I diabetes from entering the fray...

And thanks for the informed response

tabby · Post by **tabby** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:24 am

K.Snyder;1388755 wrote: It was intended by the fast food industry, very much so, which goes to prove good advertising and ignorance on behalf of the consumer.

No, I don't think the fast food industry started out with the intent of ruining the health of its customers. I suspect when the initial few restaurants opened, it was with the novel idea of providing "fast food". They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams and it grew from there. It comes down to money. If salads and light meals were their best sellers, that's what they'd be hawking.

But "eating a Big Mac two or three times a week" isn't the case for quite alot of people. They eat it every day. Everyday, breakfast, lunch, snack, and dinner. And it's not just the fast food industry it's all of the preservatives and added garbage in grocery stores as well.

I also think that many parents feed their children jarred, processed baby food far past 1 year old as well which influences their preference for crap food. There's no reason children beyond 12 months in age shouldn't eat what their parents eat with few exceptions.

I would much rather see all of the food industry mandated to keep calories and fat from going above a predetermined amount per serving.

Possibly but I think personal accountability is more important than more laws.

Well, that's because it takes a complete meltdown in order to raise concern and is as equally true in proportion to the relative wealth and complacency of the more rapidly growing economies.

Diabetes mellitus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the contrary I'd say such a lack of government intervention in corporations leads to a much higher incidence of the term "epidemic" being used

See comments above.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:54 am

tabby;1388757 wrote: No, I don't think the fast food industry started out with the intent of ruining the health of its customers. I suspect when the initial few restaurants opened, it was with the novel idea of providing "fast food". They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams and it grew from there. It comes down to money. If salads and light meals were their best sellers, that's what they'd be hawking. Allow me to think aloud here and then after I've presented my logic I will run off and test it...

In order for one to make money off of a business endeavor they have to provide something that no one else can provide that's fact #1. Fact #2 is that in order to provide fast food one has to change the way the food is prepared and delivered to the customer, lest they be no different which is directly in conflict with fact #1. Fact #3 is that in order to produce a fast food, in direct contrast with other businesses, then one has to degrade the quality of said food to keep up with demand.

tabby;1388757 wrote: Possibly but I think personal accountability is more important than more laws. I would agree in situations that does not show consistent proof that the initial thought is in conflict with the observed realities and further would like to add that such a conflict has been known for far too long for my liking

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:00 am

The thing to do at fast food restaurants for people predisposed to type II diabetes is to throw out the bun and don't order fries or anything breaded like onion rings.

Mike Huckabee is a famous person who lost a lot of weight eliminating simple carbs from his diet, but I've noticed he's put much of it back on. He was successful for a few years, but it's rare to find many people who can overcome the effects of natural selection long term. Rachel and Richard Heller, who together published a series of books on this subject have been the most long term successful people I know of.

The thing is that all it takes is three days of fighting cravings to achieve the initial steps of getting the problem under control and after two weeks noticeable changes in weight loss and body fat loss take place along with an increase in mental alertness and energy.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:11 am

K.Snyder;1388758 wrote: Allow me to think aloud here and then after I've presented my logic I will run off and test it...

In order for one to make money off of a business endeavor they have to provide something that no one else can provide that's fact #1. Fact #2 is that in order to provide fast food one has to change the way the food is prepared and delivered to the customer, lest they be no different which is directly in conflict with fact #1. Fact #3 is that in order to produce a fast food, in direct contrast with other businesses, then one has to degrade the quality of said food to keep up with demand.I agree with you for the present, but i agree with Tabby that when FF restaurants first appeared in the 60's they were mostly just burger joints that were becoming nationally known: MacDonalds as an example

We know so much more about the science of the body today.

tabby · Post by **tabby** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:33 am

Ahso!;1388759 wrote:

The thing is that all it takes is three days of fighting cravings to achieve the initial steps of getting the problem under control and after two weeks noticeable changes in weight loss and body fat loss take place along with an increase in mental alertness and energy.

I didn't know that. Is that true for all types of food cravings?

Most of our dietary habits are just that ... habits. And we all know how hard habits are to break or change. Just like smoking or drinking maybe some people can quit cold turkey but there's something to be said for gradual changes too. I think gradual changes are less intimidating.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:42 am

Ahso!;1388760 wrote: I agree with you for the present, but i agree with Tabby that when FF restaurants first appeared in the 60's they were mostly just burger joints that were becoming nationally known: MacDonalds as an example

We know so much more about the science of the body today.Did you know that White Castle is generally credited with opening the second fast-food outlet in Wichita, Kansas in 1921, selling hamburgers for five cents apiece from its inception and spawning numerous competitors and emulators. What is certain, however, is that White Castle made the first significant effort to standardize the food production in, look of, and operation of fast-food hamburger restaurants.?

My lord! The last time I ate at White Castle was in 2004(I was completely hesitant to do so considering my memories of the not more than two other times I'd eaten there I'd never been as sick and desperate in my life) and the next morning also brought back vivid memories of my childhood when the first time it was I'd consumed 750 ml of Vodka and thought I was going to honestly die! The humid, muggy, and scorching hotness of the early morning(It was far more than I could have hoped for was the thought I could sleep it off only to be awakened by agonizing abdominal pain!)which was all that was necessary for me to race to the nearest Walmart where the air conditioning and coolness of the toilet lid that met my violent buttocks I thought was as close to my perception of heaven as I can only imagine to this day!

I'm still searching for the history of calories associated with the first fast food restaurants...1955 is fine with me

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:01 am

I was diagnosed with Diabetes 2 in 2007 with a A1c of 6.5. At 6' 4' and 198 lbs. and a good Body Mass Index, and no family history of Diabetes I hardly fit the profile. My Diabetes is attributable to a NHL condition. I control my diabetes with diet and exercise and test my Blood Sugar two to four times daily. I avoid all sugars and watch the carbs closely. For me the real culprit is carbs. Prior to my diagnosis I ate well balanced meals and avoided fast foods but really over did the carbs via fish and chips aplenty, pizza, french bread, pasta, potatoes, rice. I can still eat these things but in much smaller portions and always off set with lots of veggies. One thing that I have learned about Diabetes 2 is that no two people even with the same readings, respond the same to similar diets. It's tends to be a very individual thing.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:02 am

tabby;1388763 wrote: I didn't know that. Is that true for all types of food cravings?

Most of our dietary habits are just that ... habits. And we all know how hard habits are to break or change. Just like smoking or drinking maybe some people can quit cold turkey but there's something to be said for gradual changes too. I think gradual changes are less intimidating. I don't know about all types of food cravings but I'm certain about carbohydrate sensitivities. These carvings take on lots of forms but they come from the same place, it's quite amazing what the body and mind will do in concert in order to ensure we eat.

"Habit" appears to be a trick the mind plays on us to get us to behave to what we've taught our body to accept as normal. Genetically, it appears that the body is programed to trust our judgments for it's care and if we, for example, smoke, although the body will initially act to reject the foreign substance it will be quick to adapt (coughing disappears, lungs callous over) for us , not realizing we are actually insulting it. So when we rid ourselves of the activity, the body and mind say: "hey, it's time for that stuff you inhale?" The body and mind assume we're caring for it and therefore the substance is necessary. The body will fight for as long as it can to negotiate the foreign substances coexistence.

After awhile, provided we've taught our body and mind that the substance is no longer necessary it will let us leave the "bad" behavior behind, however, if we neglect this vital step the mind and body will continue to insist on it, thus addictions.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:15 am

Lon;1388765 wrote: I was diagnosed with Diabetes 2 in 2007 with a A1c of 6.5. At 6' 4' and 198 lbs. and a good Body Mass Index, and no family history of Diabetes I hardly fit the profile. My Diabetes is attributable to a NHL condition. I control my diabetes with diet and exercise and test my Blood Sugar two to four times daily. I avoid all sugars and watch the carbs closely. For me the real culprit is carbs. Prior to my diagnosis I ate well balanced meals and avoided fast foods but really over did the carbs via fish and chips aplenty, pizza, french bread, pasta, potatoes, rice. I can still eat these things but in much smaller portions and always off set with lots of veggies. One thing that I have learned about Diabetes 2 is that no two people even with the same readings, respond the same to similar diets. It's tends to be a very individual thing.There might be a movement about to diagnose everyone as diabetic today. That's what Kev was asking earlier when he was questioning where these most current standards come from.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:37 am

Ahso!;1388770 wrote: There might be a movement about to diagnose everyone as diabetic today. That's what Kev was asking earlier when he was questioning where these most current standards come from.

There was a time I believe when no one was diagnosed with Diabetes 2 unless their A1c test was 7 or higher. Both major Diabetic Organizations have lowered this A1c test to readings over 6. Despite the fact that all the Pharmas and those selling test tapes and testing equipment have jumped into the act, I really don't think they are responsible for the current standards. There is no question about continual Diabetes Spikes doing potential damage and the potential for the disease to progress to Diabetes 1 and then requiring insulin. In my particular case I have Peripheral Neuropathy in the right foot due to prolonged un-diagnosed Diabetes 2.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:49 am

My father lost all the toes on both feet due to diabetes. His was mostly due to alcohol consumption.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:50 pm

Lon: "....potential for the disease to progress to Diabetes 1 and then requiring insulin."

Nope. You can't progress from 2 to 1. That's "progress"? What happens is, you are classified as Insulin Dependent Type 2. It will always be considered Type 2. Type 1 is the Pancreas' inability to produce even the tiniest amount of insulin. Type 2 either underproduces or pancreas can't handle correctly the little you are producing. Two different things. Insulin is really better than pills, as it doesn't overload your liver & other side-effects.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:57 pm

If I remember correctly most people with type 1 are born that way.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:06 pm

AnneBoleyn;1388822 wrote: Lon: "....potential for the disease to progress to Diabetes 1 and then requiring insulin."

Nope. You can't progress from 2 to 1. That's "progress"? What happens is, you are classified as Insulin Dependent Type 2. It will always be considered Type 2. Type 1 is the Pancreas' inability to produce even the tiniest amount of insulin. Type 2 either underproduces or pancreas can't handle correctly the little you are producing. Two different things. Insulin is really better than pills, as it doesn't overload your liver & other side-effects.Actually, I believe it's due to overproduction of insulin whereby there is so much insulin produced that the organs shut it out and then the insulin itself converts to fat and stores in the body. Body organs become starved of the insulin because they refuse it then the pancreas stops producing. In the early stages a little bit of something sweet will kick the production into gear and in the more advanced stages it will take injections to get the insulin into the blood which carries it to the organs.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:06 pm

Ahso!;1388823 wrote: If I remember correctly most people with type 1 are born that way.
No. It seems that in some people, even middle-aged, the pancreas does a complete stop of insulin production. That is what Type 1 is---NO insulin production. Type 2 is too little production or inefficient use of what is produced. There is a wonderful website for diabetics. called dLife. Web MD also has a diabetic newsletter. Plethora of info on web.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:12 pm

Ahso!;1388825 wrote: Actually, I believe it's due to overproduction of insulin whereby there is so much insulin produced that the organs shut it out and then the insulin itself converts to fat and stores in the body. Body organs become starved of the insulin because they refuse it then the pancreas stops producing. In the early stages a little bit of something sweet will kick the production into gear and in the more advanced stages it will take injections to get the insulin into the blood which carries it to the organs.

Yes, that is Type 2. That is usually started because of over-sugared, over-carbed diets. Being fat is not a requirement, plenty of thin folks have bad diets too & will develop Type 2.

Diabetes runs in my family--maternal side--Types 1&2. I was diagnosed as a 1 in my thirties.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:12 pm

AnneBoleyn;1388826 wrote: No. It seems that in some people, even middle-aged, the pancreas does a complete stop of insulin production. That is what Type 1 is---NO insulin production. Type 2 is too little production or inefficient use of what is produced. There is a wonderful website for diabetics. called dLife. Web MD also has a diabetic newsletter. Plethora of info on web.It's been a few years since I've read up on it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:15 pm

AnneBoleyn;1388827 wrote: Yes, that is Type 2. That is usually started because of over-sugared, over-carbed diets. Being fat is not a requirement, plenty of thin folks have bad diets too & will develop Type 2.

Diabetes runs in my family--maternal side--Types 1&2. I was diagnosed as a 1 in my thirties.Sorry to hear that.

It's so interesting how the body works. If a person such as myself were to go on a diet of just diet soda, I'd gain weight still if I didn't get enough exercise.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:18 pm

Sorry to hear that.

Thanks Ahso. So far it's amongst the least of my health concerns. Life sure ain't for sissies!

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:33 pm

AnneBoleyn;1388822 wrote: Lon: "....potential for the disease to progress to Diabetes 1 and then requiring insulin."

Nope. You can't progress from 2 to 1. That's "progress"? What happens is, you are classified as Insulin Dependent Type 2. It will always be considered Type 2. Type 1 is the Pancreas' inability to produce even the tiniest amount of insulin. Type 2 either underproduces or pancreas can't handle correctly the little you are producing. Two different things. Insulin is really better than pills, as it doesn't overload your liver & other side-effects.

Right you are----------thanks for the correction.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:50 am

Anyone taking, or planning to take, Actos or Avandia?

Chemically, the members of this class are derivatives of the parent compound thiazolidinedione, and include:

Rosiglitazone (Avandia), which was put under selling restrictions in the US and withdrawn from the market in Europe due to an increased risk of cardiovascular events.

Pioglitazone (Actos), France and Germany have suspended the sale of the diabetes drug Actos after a study suggested the drug, also known as pioglitazone, could raise the risk of bladder cancer.

Troglitazone (Rezulin), which was withdrawn from the market due to an increased incidence of drug-induced hepatitis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiazolidinedione

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:00 am

K.Snyder;1388913 wrote: Anyone taking, or planning to take, Actos or Avandia?

Thiazolidinedione - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI suppose Rosiglitazone-Metformin (Avandamet) also and perhaps other drugs containing Rosiglitazone (Avandia) and Pioglitazone (Actos)

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:15 am

Metabolic syndrome is a combination of medical disorders that, when occurring together, increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Some studies have shown the prevalence in the USA to be an estimated 25% of the population, and prevalence increases with age.Metabolic syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They call it CHAOS in Australia...We call it "supersize me" here in the states...

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:22 am

Well, I take Glyburide/Metformine and the Doc just started me on januvia a month back.

My only problem is I still hit real Low BG in the wee hours of the morning.

After I wake up, I can watch my BG go from 90-105 in the morning to 140-160 without ever eating anything.

The only thing that stops it is to get out and do some heavy work before breakfast.

I hate working before breakfast.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:35 am

You consider BG of 90 to be low? You say you don't eat, but do you drink? Particularly juice?

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:17 pm

No, I don't see 90 as low.

The 50's and 60's I wake up to at 3 AM are low.

90 is what I see when I get up to start my day.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:50 pm

I don't wake up at 3am, but those are my numbers too (50 or 60) when I do wake up. Even lower sometimes which is scary. I drink oj right away when that happens. I drink juice for emergencies only. But I notice "normal" people can function on a BG level I would consider low, like the 70's. I only feel comfortable with the number being in the low 100's. I guess that's because my numbers were super high for too long a time.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:14 pm

Here we go Seaweed could hold the answer to tackling obesity, according to Newcastle University researchers.

The team found alginate - a fibre found in sea kelp - reduces the body's fat uptake by more than 75%. That is better than most anti-obesity treatments. BBC News - Seaweed fights obesity, researchers in Newcastle claim

There's an interesting bit that should no doubt grab the attention of most...

My next inquiry is to find the latest results of the laboratory tests and then find out where I can purchase some of it...

From what I've read also There is renewed hope for treatment of diabetes type 1 with gel capsules: Biotechnologists at The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) have developed a new type of alginate capsule that could solve the problem of the body’s immune system recognizing and attacking alien, implanted insulin cells. Capsules Against Diabetesit could very well be a direct incentive for those taking insulin coupled with it's seemingly promising effect on limiting fat intake...

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:29 pm

To prevent diabetes in the future is telling your grandson who is not a diabetic to marry a girl whose parents have no history of diabetes in the family. That`s the only way.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:57 pm

rajakrsna;1392288 wrote: To prevent diabetes in the future is telling your grandson who is not a diabetic to marry a girl whose parents have no history of diabetes in the family. That`s the only way.What if one's grandson is diabetic?

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:04 pm

K.Snyder;1392294 wrote: What if one's grandson is diabetic?

In Adolph Hitler`s time, they gassed him up ( Bad for the Aryan race).

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:06 pm

rajakrsna;1392296 wrote: In Adolph Hitler`s time, they gassed him up ( Bad for the Aryan race).Let's pretend for a moment that Adolph Hitler has nothing to do with diabetes...

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:11 pm

K.Snyder;1392294 wrote: What if one's grandson is diabetic?

There`s no cure for diabetes ( lack of insulin ). You can only augment the lack of insulin not in restoring to once it (normal level) was before. You cant prevent diabetes from occurring once its in your genes. These so-called 1 cup of rice a day or limit the intake of carbohydrates, exercise etc are just palliatives.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:37 pm

rajakrsna;1392300 wrote: There`s no cure for diabetes ( lack of insulin ). You can only augment the lack of insulin not in restoring to once it (normal level) was before. You cant prevent diabetes from occurring once its in your genes. These so-called 1 cup of rice a day or limit the intake of carbohydrates, exercise etc are just palliatives.That's true for people with type 1 diabetes but type 2 diabetes is entirely different Type 2 diabetes makes up about 90% of cases of diabetes with the other 10% due primarily to diabetes mellitus type 1 and gestational diabetes. Obesity is thought to be the primary cause of type 2 diabetes in people who are genetically predisposed to the disease.

[...]

Rates of diabetes have increased markedly over the last 50 years in parallel with obesity. As of 2010 there are approximately 285 million people with the disease compared to around 30 million in 1985.

[...]

The development of type 2 diabetes is caused by a combination of lifestyle and genetic factors. While some are under personal control such as diet and obesity others such as increasing age, female gender, and genetics are not. A lack of sleep has been linked to type 2 diabetes. This is believed to act through its effect on metabolism. The nutritional status of a mother during fetal development may also play a role with one proposed mechanism being that of altered DNA methylation.Diabetes mellitus type 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Education, a more self conscious attitude, and the desire to fight against low income inequality is a far better answer from where I'm sitting

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:44 pm

K.Snyder;1392307 wrote: That's true for people with type 1 diabetes but type 2 diabetes is entirely different Diabetes mellitus type 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Education, a more self conscious attitude, and the desire to fight against low income inequality is a far better answer from where I'm sitting

They are only for the books. My experience in treating diabetes, Snyd-my friend, is different from what the books say. Maybe it`s something to do with culture-our way of life why it`s very difficult to cure diabetes.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:49 pm

rajakrsna;1392310 wrote: They are only for the books. My experience in treating diabetes, Snyd-my friend, is different from what the books say. Maybe it`s something to do with culture-our way of life why it`s very difficult to cure diabetes.

Yes, it's very difficult...I could also suggest that if anyone is traveling up and down a beach, they stop and eat some seaweed

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:52 pm

K.Snyder;1392314 wrote: Yes, it's very difficult...I could also suggest that if anyone is traveling up and down a beach, they stop and eat some seaweed

It cures Grave`s disease.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:19 am

rajakrsna;1392316 wrote: It cures Grave`s disease.By simply eating it?

Do you think being next to a nuclear reactor as it melts down would help?

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:40 pm

K.Snyder;1392383 wrote: By simply eating it?

Do you think being next to a nuclear reactor as it melts down would help?

These seaweeds we boil it then put some tomatoes, preserved grounded shrimps & vinegar. Then we eat them. It`s rich in iodine which is the cure for Goiter or Grave`s disease.