here again, modern medical science has been so blindsided by all the focus on type 1 issues and the lead in part of the cycle from eating, food input, glucose generation and totally lost track of the back half of the cycle - skeletal muscles, fatcells, temp glucose storage and stauration effects from constant over supply of glucose and not burning that off.
Bariatric surgey is extremely effective in chopping back the glucose generation so the back half losses the saturation and overloading of glucose storage.
The human machine is faced with science - mechanical limitations like any machine out there. The mentality of just shove - take more insulin and actos and the body gets rid of the excess glucose is shere stupidity.
All the diet and exercise in the world won't prevent diabetes if they keep putting things into the food that can cause diabetes (HFCS, Alloxan, etc).
Many medications can cause diabetes as well.
GALLSTONES can easily cause diabetes.
How can thise things, including genetic issues, be someone's fault?
I went from non diabetic to full blown type 2 diabetic in less than 6 months. All because of medication I took to help with headaches they were unable to determine the cause of.
Many artificial sweeteners can cause a nyraid of health problems.
OK, being male, should I have to pay higher insurance premiums just because some woman wants to churn out handfuls of kids and the insurance has to pay for the births? Is that fair to me? NO! They also get reduced taxes because of their choice in family status. Should single guys have to shoulder the excess tax burden because they chose to have kids? What about property taxes. A single guy who owns a house and land has to pay taxes for schools so someone else's kids can get an education.
Pregnancy is a choice. Maybe since the woman chooses to be pregnant that the insurance companies shouldn't cover their medical needs because the woman chose their condition.
And NO, the excuse that the pregnancy was an accident don't cut it. The woman could easily say no (her right).
Women who know that their kid is genetically defective and when born would be on the taxpayer dole forever and do not end the pregnancy should be made to pay the entire cost for the handicapped person forever too. The norms didn't have any say in the matter and yet they are the one's footing the bill.
Ok, I could make all kinds of examples why insurance companies and other subscribers would want to avoid paying for things.
Back to the diabetic topic - unless the insurance companies are not allowed to screw diabetics on a whim, by law, they certainly will.
About obesity - most welfare and section 8 individuals are overweight or obese. Food stamps let the buy anything they want, including soft srinks, chips, and many other fattening sugary type foods.
Should taxpayers pay for them to sit on their fat lazy butts, churn out kids, eat like pigs, and have related health problems because of the lifestyle they chose?
Ok, now where do you put limits on things? What would the limits be?
Should insurance companies (and even taxpayers) limit what people do, eat, and what kinds of treatments that someone receives?
How about guys paying higher insurance premiums because a woman has to see a gyno yearly?
How about us paying for alcoholism and treatment? Should insurance companies pay for someone's choice to drink or do drugs? Should we pay higher premiums to cover those costs?
Rule of thumb: insurance companies are concerned about the bottom line and will do whatever they can to limit costs and boost profits.
I myself did not choose to become diabetic. I had an active lifestyle and was generally healthy. But fate dealt me this hand.
Of course some people could defer their diabetes for a few years if they changed their lifestyle now. But with the lifestyle that people must live in order to survive, it is almost impossible to stay healthy.
Note: it is cheaper to eat bad foods than to eat healthy. Exercise takes valuable time away from other important activities.
Myabe if people didn't have to struggle to make ends meet they could be healthier.
Maybe if laws were changed to help prevent diseases things would change. But the people don't want to be told what to do.
CEO's are to blame too. They gouge people any way they can. They put in cheap chemicals into the food/drink to save a buck and make them even richer.
I could write for days and days about things, but what is the point if no one is willing to fix the problems?
You're absolutely right that there are a lot of variables in the process that causes diabetes of any type. Type 2 is a garbage-can diagnosis -- anyone that doesn't fit the classic autoimmune definition of T1 gets thrown into that garbage can, and no one has yet bothered to figure out whether there are different varieties of T2, with different causes, and perhaps different treatment needs. Or if someone is working on it, they haven't said anything about it yet.
What I wonder about with you is, what are you using for treatment, and have you been tested for antibodies? T1s are not necessarily skinny, and some are overweight, even at diagnosis. It's important to know for sure.
And if you turn out not to have antibodies, and are, indeed T2, then you have to remember and repeat: it's NOT your fault. You get the genetics you get, and you were unlucky, but it's NOT your fault. You do what you need to to stay healthy, and after that, all those stupid magazine articles, and all those stupid doctors can go you know where. You need to be assertive about getting proper treatment (I've been that route), and not let ANYONE bully you about your size or your diabetes. Your value as a person is not about those. It's about YOU. Remember that every single day! :-)
I'm aware that the debate about genes versus lifestyle as the cause of diabetes type II has been going on for years, and probably will continue way past our lifetime. However, there is one side of the genes argument that has always puzzled me. If the main culprit is genes, which we've inherited from our parents and other forbearers, why is there an epidemic today while our grandparents were highly unlikely to contract diabetes type II? I personally believe that the answer is that both are required in order for an individual to get type II : genetic predisposition and a sedative lifestyle combined with an unhealthy diet, often leading to obesity. Also, to counter the environmental argument, that it's something in the air we breath, the water we drink: The diabetes epidemic is flaring up in various parts of the world where the air and water certainly is different from here in North America. However, those parts, most notably India and China, are places that are experiencing rapid growth and increased incomes, allowing residents to engage in the kid of gluttony that has been common in North America for many years. And, probably not coincidentially, these flare ups are happening hot on the tail of the regional expansions of chains like McDonalds, Pizzahut and Burgerking, which combined are probably a much bigger factor in the diabetes epidemic than anybody's genes.
I can't speak for India, but the air in China's cities is horribly polluted. And that's where most Chinese live.
And you can't really blame T2 on simple gluttony -- there are too many T2s who eat well, and also thin T2s for this to be the answer.
The real problem is much less is known about the biology of T2 than T1, and so lots of people make generalizations about them without knowing what's going on in any one person's case. And if the docs don't know, I doubt you do, either.
I realize that the air in many parts of China is horribly polluted, in fact a friend who stayed a week in Shanghai said it was so bad he had a thumping headache from the moment he arrived until he was back in the air again. A lot of other places are also terribly polluted by industrial pollution and cars, for example Santiago, the capitol of Chile, where I spent a couple of months. The difference is that there are no reports of a diabetes epidemic in Chile, unlike in China, where, surprise, surprise, there has also been a significant rise in obesity due to overconsumption of westernized fast food. In other words, I don't buy the pollution theory, which I see as another attempt at helping people evade the responsibility they should have for their own health and disease prevention.
Of course, you haven't seen any reports of a T2 diabetes "epidemic" in Chile, since it, like most South American countries, does not report on the prevalence of diabetes. I looked it up.
As read in a recent CDA's Diabetes Dialogue magazine ; I was pleased when I asked to post this on FB ; CDA listened ! http://www.diabetes.ca/diabetes-and-you/diabetes-dialogue/choice-or... “The misperception that your lifestyle is to blame for your disease can be so destructive,” says Diabetes Dialogue editor, Dr. Diane Donat. Find out more in the article “Type 2 Diabetes: Choice or Chance?” and tell us about your experiences. http://bit.ly/13fHSCi
PS I noticed this discussion is going since July 2008 :)
Just read the article -- it's a good one! :-)