Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Katsz on December 11, 2010 at 1:29pm

Both my niece and son had the flu just before....hmmmmm  and they are both big milk drinkers... that is another theory.. guess we will never know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doris D on December 11, 2010 at 1:32pm

I've been told MANY things threw out the years. Let's just hope sometime soon they will find out.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doris D on December 12, 2010 at 10:05am

Oh Katsz I didn't say this yesterday but I have 2 girls one with Type 1 and the other without it. The Type 1 is 22 now and the other will soon turn 20. Please don't do what I did (it will drive you crazy) when my kids were growing up (expecillay after my oldest took TYpe 1) I watched her sister so close it made her VERY uncomfortable I was sooooo worried that she would get it too. (and still am)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Katsz on December 12, 2010 at 12:28pm

My younger son is a worrier.. I try not to worry him.  He gets anxiety attacks and all... HE worries enough for us both...he was the one who insisted on the A1C test for himself... I did it to show him he was ok.   He worries constantl about his brother and drives him crazy sometimes.   I do worry.. there was one time he wanted me to test him and he was very high. I told him it was just cuz there was sugar on his finger or something.... not sure though.   I know there are many people who have 2 kids w/it......I couldn't imagine!  That would be sooo hard!

Permalink Reply by AngelaC on December 12, 2010 at 8:47pm

According to Standards of Medical Care 2008, published in Diabetes Care, the answer is yes, there is such a thing as "prediabetes" for type 1. The text reads as follows:

 

C. Screening for type 1 diabetes Generally, people with type 1 diabetes present with acute symptoms of diabetes and markedly elevated blood glucose levels, and most cases are diagnosed soon after the onset of hyperglycemia. Widespread clinical testing of asymptomatic individuals for the presence of autoantibodies related to type 1 diabetes cannot currently be recommended as a means to identify individuals at risk, for several reasons: 1) cutoff values for the immune marker assays have not been completely established or standardized for clinical settings; 2) there is no consensus as to what follow-up testing should be undertaken when a positive autoantibody test result is obtained; and 3) because the incidence of type 1 diabetes is low, testing of healthy individuals will identify only a very small number (0.5%) who at that moment may be “prediabetic.” Finally, though clinical studies are being conducted to test various methods of preventing type 1 diabetes in high-risk individuals, no effective intervention has yet been identified. If studies uncover an effective means of preventing type 1 diabetes, targeted screening (e.g., siblings of type 1 children) may be appropriate in the future.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian (bsc) on December 13, 2010 at 5:12am

While this is interesting, it is an inconsistent use of the term "prediabetic" and I'm not sure I would accept this as supporting type 1 "prediabetes."  After all, antibody testing does not identify a blood sugar problems itself and is a poor predictor of future risk.

 

This material is based primarily on WebMd:

 

Historically, "prediabetes" has been used to describe an impaired glucose metabolism that does not satisfy the criteria for "diabetes."   It had been called "borderline" and involved either Impaired Fasting Glucose (IFG) or Impaired Glucose Tolerance (IGT) which were not normal, but not disturbed enough to be diagnosed outright as diabetes.  They key thing is that with "prediabetes," the risk of progression to "diabetes" was "very high."  I consider the term "prediabetes" in use today to be actually inappropriate, since "prediabetes" and "diabetes" are both expressions of an imparied glucose metabolism and nobody has shown me that either T2 diabetes or T2 prediabetes can be "cured."  It is just diabetes.

 

But the key is that the state is defined as an observed impairment of glucose metabolism and is presumed to predict the further progression to "diabetes" with a high degree of certainty.  The section you quote from the "Standards of Care," which was qualitatively unchanged in 2010 does not support this.  Antibody testing is not a indicative of an impaired glucose metabolism, and does not predict with any confidence the risk of future progression to full blown T1.  In fact some 20% of type 2 diabetics are anitbody positive and many non-diabetics are also antibody positive.  In my view, the whole definition of autoimmune T1 totally s*cks.  You either have an out of control autoimmune response or your don't.  The degree of beta-cell destruction is simply a measure of how much harm the response has inflicted.

 

In the end I guess I feel like the term "prediabetic" for type 1 (and type 2) probably has a much usefulness as being "prepregnant."

 

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jamie on January 16, 2011 at 12:56pm

I'm not sure but I was diagnosed prediabetic at about 14 and my parents started giving me sugar free stuff and watching what I ate and by the time I was 17 I was diagnosis type 1 so idk I think I was slowly become type 1 the whole time? idkk really but that's what happened to me

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by rick phillips on January 16, 2011 at 1:33pm

I cannot answer number 1. I was Dx'd three weeks after a normal Glucose tolerance test, so I don't really believe in pre-type 1 diabetes. Just me, I don't know the answer however.

There are no urine tests for pre type -1 that I am sure of. My guess, again a guess is that if a person shows glucose, in their urine, they either have diabetes or they have some sort of kidney issue. I know when I had increased glucose in my urine, i had type 1.

Less of anything will not cause or prohibit type 1 diabetes. Type 1 occurs as a result of an immune system abnormality, not as a result of ingesting too much or too little sugar. The reason it is genetic is that these issues tend to be influenced based on the genetic predisposition. But since no one knows the trigger at this point it is impossible to say that eating something is the trigger. I myself think it will be viral in nature. But that is just me, and no one knows the trigger att his point.

rick phillips

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Natalie ._c- on January 16, 2011 at 9:01pm

When a child is tested and shows positive for antibodies, I suppose you could call it pre-diabetic. However, most children destined to become diabetic are never tested for antibodies because they're usually the only ones in their families.
In families with multiple members with Type 1, be it parents or siblings, a test would be worth it -- the diabetes may never come to pass, but at least you know the child has the risk.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hismouse on January 17, 2011 at 8:15pm

I swear the ADA is not on the Road to have us get better. We have all learned what helps and we share it. It becomes a relationship with your food and meter.. It doesn't take much smarts to see how starchy carbs make our Blood Sugars higher.

If Candy and sugar caused Type 1, there would be zillions a day diagnosed Type 1...If you have Type 1, yes candy and sugar based food with make your BS be like a Roller coaster...

If they caught this little girl on her way to Type 1, her Dad is a icredible watch dog...and they caught it in the failing state, thats all I can think...So does she have Type 1,, guess we will hear the truth some day, On TV:)

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page