I'm sure I've read studies that indicate the opposite for type 1; i.e. that it's more common in affluent areas.Often, the deprived area's have the largest amount of people with diabetes. So, could this factor be the same in the suburbs of Scotland. Could it be down to the poorer area's, poor lifestyles ie parents on benefits, out of work, cheap processed foods, poor housing, smoking, alcohol or children under achieving at school ? There is definitely a rise happening in the 21st century ?
Most countries with high incidence are Westernized, developed countries (e.g., see Diamond Project Group 2006), and even within Europe, incidence is correlated to gross national product (GNP) and other indicators of national prosperity (Patterson et al. 2001).
Studies have found higher incidence of type 1 in wealthier areas or in people with higher socioeconomic status within countries as well
I'm sure I've read studies that indicate the opposite for type 1; i.e. that it's more common in affluent areas.
Maybe, but let's hope that before they commenced on a study involving sticking needles in over 6000 children and receiving $1.7million of JDRF funding the researchers also at least considered obvious potential causes. I'm not sure, but I think if type 1 is diagnosed post mortem it would still get recorded as an incidence & acidosis (which is how you die if you die from DKA due to undiagnosed type 1) will show up in post mortem results.
Yes, there are lots of recent studies. I think you're right about type 2 but studies have shown that - for type 1 - higher socioeconomic status is associated with higher incidence of type 1.Hi, are these recent studies ? Because diabetes seems to have changed over recent years. When typing type 1 into google, most links are about type 2, obesity and lifestyle.
http://www.diabetesinscotland.org.uk/Publications/SDS2014.pdf
:- www.diabetes.org.uk/About_us/News_Landing_Page/UK-has-worlds-5th-highest-rate-of-Type-1-diabetes-in-children/List-of-countries-by-incidence-of-Type-1-diabetes-ages-0-to-14/
I have talked to my GP about my body (when deceased) being used for research at a medical institute/university.
I was reading an a story in The Herald today talking about a study to investigate whether or not there may be a link between lifestyle and type 1 diabetes. The idea is that poor lifestyle causes direct damage to beta cells and these damaged cells are then attacked my the immune system, finishing them off.
I think the reporter of this story and this poor research etc should be put where it's best used, through a shredder!
I worry about trials like this. It appears this has come off the back of the positive effects of the 'Norwich Diet' which seems to reduce or reverse Type 2 Diabetes and reduce the demand for Metformin. My partner was prescribed the drug but decided to try the diet first and was cleared of Type 2. My grandmother developed Type 2 and was prescribed Metformin and developed several reactions within a week. We altered her diet and she has not presented any symptoms since.I was reading an a story in The Herald today talking about a study to investigate whether or not there may be a link between lifestyle and type 1 diabetes. The idea is that poor lifestyle causes direct damage to beta cells and these damaged cells are then attacked my the immune system, finishing them off.
In my opinion it's certainly NOT the case that all Type 1 diabetes are caused by lifestyle or even a sizeable minority of cases. Given a lot of people have diabetes from infancy it's hardly likely to have been caused by lifestyle! However, the triggers aren't very well known as this seems like as good a theory as any for a small number of cases of adults getting diabetes?
I appreciate I'm only a sample size of 1 but when I was diagnosed I was really shockingly unhealthy. Obese, drinking too much, eating terribly and so on. I was sure I had type 2 and my GP suspected as much as well until my ketone results came back which were sky high. So could there be a link for SOME people? I was actually always glad 1 was Type I rather than Type 2, partly because I felt like I hadn't brought it on myself, but perhaps I did? If I did though I don't think it would bother me as much now as it would have back then given the very positive force diabetes has been in my life in terms of sorting out my health.
Have a look at the literature on the dutch famine of 1944. Google the research and studies on disease effects including diabetes. Telling that children of affected mothers were far more susceptible to developing diabetes than others in the world born around that era unaffected by famine.
What a croc of **** that statement is re Lifestyle bring a cause of type 1 diabetes.
I have had it for over 50 years now and was diagnosed just before my 5th birthday, due to rapid loss of weight and kept "falling asleep" then waking up and carrying on as before, so I've been told.
I know many other very young children that had Diabetes from a extremely young age, some unfortunately didn't make it past 25 years, but things are different now, and not just the boiling of syringes or the testing of urine etc, with cow or pig insulin so (don't know how the Muslims catered having to take what was generally available then, Pork based was the norm).
I think the reporter of this story and this poor research etc should be put where it's best used, through a shredder!
@Robinredbreast The sharpest increase has been in very young children (under 6), I think? That's scary.
That makes me think it's something in the environment generally rather than individual 'lifestyles'.
@Robinredbreast The sharpest increase has been in very young children (under 6), I think? That's scary.
That makes me think it's something in the environment generally rather than individual 'lifestyles'.
I think that might be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The way the study has be presented in some parts of the media might be dissatisfying & thats frustrating. But it would be a shame to tar the research with the the same brush
The research comes from Exeter, a world leading diabetes research centre where, I think, they discovered (or at least were instrumental in discovering) monogenic diabetes (MODY).
The aim of the research is a clinical trial to see if metformin in children at risk of type 1 can avoid developing diabetes by taking metformin prophylactically - if there is a potential that it might work & it might prevent just one kid developing type one do we really want to shred the research just because the answer might be unpalatable?
I guess I just see the research into the causes as a good thing, because at the moment there is no answer on the cause & if we can get a step closer to figuring out the cause then it's a step closer to preventing my kids getting type one & then they might even be able to figure out how to "turn off" what ever is causing it in me so that the can just give me some new beta cells & my immune system won't immediately try to kill them. Obviously that's several hundred steps down the line, but it starts somewhere. I like the idea of a start