I cured my diabetes so anybody can

[serenity648]

Again this is irrelevant to the main point. If someone no longer exhibits diabetic responses they are indistinguishable from non diabetics irrespective of their genetic makeup.

I respectfully disagree. If someone is inherently prone to diabetes, and has a wonky gene or pancreas or whatever, that risk remains, regardless of the state of their health at any given point. They are not cured. The risk of diabetes recurring has not gone. It is in abeyance until something changes.

 

[Barry Holt]

My thoughts also

I also believe he has succeeded in his aim he has provoked the response he was aiming for the

 

[samantha13]

I also believe he has succeeded in his aim he has provoked the response he was aiming for the

I hate to be bad minded but I definitely feel his post was to provoke this response and possibly he'll come back trying to sell us something. Maybe just my bad mind

 

[EdMac]

I respectfully disagree. If someone is inherently prone to diabetes, and has a wonky gene or pancreas or whatever, that risk remains, regardless of the state of their health at any given point. They are not cured. The risk of diabetes recurring has not gone. It is in abeyance until something changes.

And the non diabetic can be at just as much risk as the person who has reversed their diabetic function. Nothing you are saying changes the point that the reversed diabetic can be indistinguishable from someone who has never been diabetic. And yet you want to classify them as different. Or would you round up everyone who is 'at risk' of becoming diabetic and insist they already are diabetic irrespective of whether they have ever exhibited any symptoms or not?

 

[serenity648]

I have a feeling we are talking at cross purposes, and so, as i cant think of a different way to explain what I mean, i will bow out of this.

However, if anyone finds any reputable info on diabetes and genes, would they let me know please?

 

[zand]

@EdMac I'm a bit confused by your thinking. I have read all your posts on this thread and I still don't understand at what point you would say that I'm not diabetic? My HbA1c is in the prediabetic range, having been T2 4 years ago. So I'm a fairly well controlled T2, like many of us here. I'm still diabetic though and I believe I always will be. I also believe that many of the female members of my family were undiagnosed pre diabetics, hence a genetic trait.

 

[Robinredbreast]

I am not questioning because i am, or may be offended. I have no idea where the offense would come into it. I am simply looking for accurate information and links to studies clarifying this important point - is diabetes only a matter of how we eat, or is it genetic, and why do some people, who eat the same as each other, become diabetic, and not others.

I have a feeling we are talking at cross purposes, and so, as i cant think of a different way to explain what I mean, i will bow out of this.

However, if anyone finds any reputable info on diabetes and genes, would they let me know please?

http://www.healthline.com/health/type-2-diabetes/genetics#Testing4

 

[Robinredbreast]

Well that could add a level of detail because the people in Set C are perhaps those most likely, having exercised a sensible diet for a lifetime, to be offended - along with the more deluded members of Set B (Set Bd).

So Set C can be subdivided into Set Co - people exhibiting a diabetic response despite maintaining a healthy diet who are offended by their own interpretation (taken not given ) of a comment to be implying that they are diabetic because of eating habits and Set Cno - people exhibiting a diabetic response despite maintaining a healthy diet who do not interpret a comment to be implying they are diabetic because of their own eating habits and are not offended.

Fortunately set membership rules for Bd, C, Co and Cno have little bearing on the membership rules for sets A & B (inclusive of B1 & B2).

Phewww, things nearly got complicated there.

I concur. But the word offended keeps popping up, diabetes membership rules ? It is getting rather confusing and a tad complicated too

 

[Brunneria]

I get it, we've all got anecdotal evidence that some can eat **** food and not become diabetic and some can eat healthily and yet become diabetic.

This is largely irrelevant to the wider point.

There is a population of people (Set A) who have the potential to become diabetic because of diet - but they don't because they are sensible in their eating habits.

There is a population of people (Set B) who have the potential to become diabetic because of diet - and they do because they are less sensible in their eating habits. (lets not get into a debate about what sense has to do with it)

Set B can be further divided into sub groups, two of which are:

Set B1: those who remain diabetic for life. Perhaps they reduce diabetic response, perhaps not. In any event how do we know they are diabetic - because they exhibit physiological responses that can be directly measured.

Set B2: those who fully recover and exhibit no diabetic responses.

In terms of measurement Set A and Set B2 are indistinguishable from one another. I see no reason to apply different labels.

Small Print (to be read at triple speed without pause): Sets A & B do not represent individuals on the forum any likeness to individuals on the forum is purely coincidental. Sets A & B do not represent a full population of diabetics or non diabetics, they are formed to demonstrate how the boundary conditions for applications of the term Remission in conjunction with the term Diabetic are frequently either ill formed and / or ill applied. Before feeling offended readers are urged to consider that offence is always taken and cannot be given. Have a nice day

Still waiting for your links and references, please.

 

[EdMac]

Still waiting for your links and references, please.

Links and references to what specifically?

 

[Brunneria]

Links and references to what specifically?

Well, without evidence, your comments are nothing but theoretical discussion, which do not really contribute anything to this thread.

@serenity648 has already asked you for evidence to justify your theory, several times. I am also curious to see the firm scientific evidence in support of your theory.

 

[SunnyExpat]

theory - a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.

fact - a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Let's not get mixed up.
It's an interesting discussion so far though, which is the point of the 'Diabetes Discussion' forum

 

[EdMac]

Well, without evidence, your comments are nothing but theoretical discussion, which do not really contribute anything to this thread.

Well you've really got this back to front haven't you

If someone has no diabetic response whatsoever how do they prove they are diabetic?

And I still fail to see what someone actually gains by believing they are diabetic when they have no diabetic response. I understand that some people like to use fear to motivate themselves. But actually long term that's as likely to break down and actually cause failure as it is to sustain success.

 

[Brunneria]

Well you've really got this back to front haven't you

If someone has no diabetic response whatsoever how do they prove they are diabetic?

And I still fail to see what someone actually gains by believing they are diabetic when they have no diabetic response. I understand that some people like to use fear to motivate themselves. But actually long term that's as likely to break down and actually cause failure as it is to sustain success.

So, no references then?

 

[EdMac]

I still don't understand at what point you would say that I'm not diabetic?

When you stopped exhibiting a diabetic response. Which is different from being a well controlled diabetic. It means you can no longer reproduce a diabetic response. And that doesn't mean after 6 months of concerted effort gaining weight and trashing your good work.

 

[Brunneria]

So, this is your opinion, right? You have no studies or scientific papers to back up your theory?

Also, you seem to be dodging the whole genetic question with your recent answers. @Robinredbreast came up with a useful link. Don't you have any to support your side of the argument?

I have to say, you are not managing to persuade me to take your theory seriously, so I will bow out of the discussion for now, and wait for for you to provide that evidence.

 

[zand]

When you stopped exhibiting a diabetic response. Which is different from being a well controlled diabetic. It means you can no longer reproduce a diabetic response. And that doesn't mean after 6 months of concerted effort gaining weight and trashing your good work.

So for me then, the answer is never, which is what I believe is true for most (not all) of us. We can control it well and have non-diabetic numbers, but eat more carbs regularly and those numbers will rise. I am happy with the label "well controlled T2"

 

[EdMac]

So for me then, the answer is never, which is what I believe is true for most (not all) of us. We can control it well and have non-diabetic numbers, but eat more carbs regularly and those numbers will rise. I am happy with the label "well controlled T2"

I've no idea what the ratio is, but it seems to me that there are more people embracing the possibility of reversing their diabetes rather than just managing it. So time, as it inevitably does, will tell.

 

[serenity648]

People are embracing the possibility of reversing their diabetes because that is what their healthcare professionals are telling them is happening. With, it seems, little or no evidence for them to hold that belief.

 

[Barry Holt]

I hate to be bad minded but I definitely feel his post was to provoke this response and possibly he'll come back trying to sell us something. Maybe just my bad mind

There have been one or two on here doing this style of behaviour ,Istrongly suspect there are people who do nothing else but this type of behaviour