• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Another nail in the carb coffin

There is a gene for T1D and a mixture associated with T2D and one for MODY that if you inherit it will increase your chances of developing diabetes. But it is not a cut and dried thing, Some are lucky some are not. Also there are other factors that can apply. It is not an exact science. i.e. obesity will add to the risk but it is by no means certain that anyone overweight will succumb.

Personally I accept my condition, but now no longer worry about where it came from. My mother was T1D, O am T2D, so apparently different genes involved. No one else on my family has it either.
 
Pinkorchid said:
I do not believe that carbs are going to kill normal healthy people or that we caused our diabetes by what we ate or put our children and grandchildren at risk if that was the case every body would have diabetes. I am 78 and have no plans to pop off any time soon. I ate my fair share of carbs over those years was never overweight and apart from T2 I do not have any other medical or mobility problems
Click to expand...

Unfortunately your hypothesis that " everyone" would have diabetes is not far off the truth. They have tested in some townships in South Africa and found that 100% of the population is diabetic or pre diabetic. -

Babies are now being born with insulin resistance, youngsters are developing T2 diabetes as teenagers.

In my view using current diets its only a matter of time before it really is everyone, including all those like you who it did not make obese on the outside, just fat on the inside.
 
serenity648 said:
I recognise, from your many posts, that you are a clever person who can read and comprehend these studies. I do not share your intellect. Please would you mind giving me the Ladybird version or synopsis? xxx
Click to expand...

My reading of it is that they have identified a number of genes so far that might predispose one towards diabetes in differing degrees, but there may well be more and each one might then have a different effect on the way your own diabetes problems develop compared to others.

it is also known that something like 20% of the obese population have either not yet reached the threshold at which their body can cope with diabetes, or for some reason they can carry on absorbing additional calories as peripheral fat without it actually taking residence as visceral fat.
 
For type 2 we are looking at around 6 million in the UK with an estimated 1 million undiagnosed at present but we must also look at what is coming up behind. The number of people starting to struggle to keep there blood glucose normal and the speed at which this number is increasing

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/6/e005002
 
Alison Campbell said:
For type 2 we are looking at around 6 million in the UK with an estimated 1 million undiagnosed at present but we must also look at what is coming up behind. The number of people starting to struggle to keep there blood glucose normal and the speed at which this number is increasing

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/6/e005002
Click to expand...

What is clear to me from all this is that diabetes and obesity is not a personal lifestyle choice it is a society wide - issue caused by the contamination of the world's food supply.

Given the sheer extent of it and the way it has tracked the development of processed foods and seed oils into global diets and been accompanied by an increase in sugar and reduction in fat consumption, this is dietary advice issue - no matter what other factors are affecting it from genes to environment to lifestyle.

When simple studies show that the effect of switching out a relatively small amount carbs for proteins ( 60 g in the Swiss studies - so only 240 calories) but keeping calories the same has the effect of dramatically reducing NAFLD, then its clear that humans are very sensitively wired to relatively small increases in carbs and thus the introduction of low fat guidelines which have now swept the world and are being tenaciously clung to by those who stand to lose money or reputation as a result is indeed a global catastrophe - or in my terms an " extinction level " event for the human race.
 
CherryAA said:
My reading of it is that they have identified a number of genes so far that might predispose one towards diabetes in differing degrees, but there may well be more and each one might then have a different effect on the way your own diabetes problems develop compared to others.

it is also known that something like 20% of the obese population have either not yet reached the threshold at which their body can cope with diabetes, or for some reason they can carry on absorbing additional calories as peripheral fat without it actually taking residence as visceral fat.
Click to expand...

oops I just realised I inadvertently look like I took credit as being a clever person that you meant for @oldvatar lol
ha ha soz I was just reading the research - goes away chuckling ....
 
serenity648 said:
As i understand it, we cant become diabetic without the diabetes gene, regardless of what we eat. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as "the diabetic gene" for Type 2 - there are a combination of genes that can affect whether you are susceptible to diabetes or not. In my case, DNA analysis came back with multiple SNP but genetic factors are only one part of the puzzle.
 
CherryAA said:
oops I just realised I inadvertently look like I took credit as being a clever person that you meant for @oldvatar lol
ha ha soz I was just reading the research - goes away chuckling ....
Click to expand...
No worries, its your thread anyway. I believe. This is a discussion, so we get a cross section of views to mull over, No one here is especially clever, but most of us are experienced, and that is what counts. I admit to having made assumptions in the past that turned out to be incorrect, so no one is perfect. You were simply peer reviewing.
 
Oldvatr said:
No worries, its your thread anyway. I believe. This is a discussion, so we get a cross section of views to mull over, No one here is especially clever, but most of us are experienced, and that is what counts. I admit to having made assumptions in the past that turned out to be incorrect, so no one is perfect. You were simply peer reviewing.
Click to expand...

thanks - in reality a an awful lot of knowledge is based on- been there, done that, seen it before - I guess the nice thing about getting older is that that is true of more and more things !
 
All we really want to know is if there been any studies that actually prove what causes diabetes I think not but what we do know is that some people are more predisposed to it than others no matter what they do. There is much more about diabetes not yet discovered If only it was as simple as diet then the world would be cured or prevented from getting it. Until the cause is found we can only wait and carry on with what we do to control ours
 
Pinkorchid said:
All we really want to know is if there been any studies that actually prove what causes diabetes I think not but what we do know is that some people are more predisposed to it than others no matter what they do. There is much more about diabetes not yet discovered If only it was as simple as diet then the world would be cured or prevented from getting it. Until the cause is found we can only wait and carry on with what we do to control ours
Click to expand...
And one day they will deal with the common cold? And if they isolate the gene or genes causing diabetes - what then? Genetically modified humans? Designer babies? I would rather they took simple steps to sort out our diet issues properly, and leave the genetics for T1D because it is not diet related. They in power seem incapable of resolving diet which is being shown to have a real benefit for us T2D's and capable of saving the care industry a fortune, (but possibly bankrupting some pharmaceuticals along the way).
 
I have t2d and hypothyroidism. My mum had 6 sisters and one brother. The sisters( all bar one who died young) all had t2d and hypothyroidism. Mum has hypothyroidism and t2d.
Her bother has ms and after diagnosis of early onset mature onset diabetes aged 33 ( thats what it was called back then!)has now been reclassified as lada.
I have a niece who is type 1. My daughter has other autoimmune disorders.

I agree that t2d has a diet component but that cannot be the whole story. Not all of my aunts were overweight (didn't know about tofi back then) but still managed to lose eyesight and toes.
I really hope that there are significant advances in discovering the causes of t2d. We know what makes it worse, but not why some of us have it but others eating an equally dreadful diet don't.
I do not want my children having to face this.
 
Kentoldlady1 said:
I have t2d and hypothyroidism. My mum had 6 sisters and one brother. The sisters( all bar one who died young) all had t2d and hypothyroidism. Mum has hypothyroidism and t2d.
Her bother has ms and after diagnosis of early onset mature onset diabetes aged 33 ( thats what it was called back then!)has now been reclassified as lada.
I have a niece who is type 1. My daughter has other autoimmune disorders.

I agree that t2d has a diet component but that cannot be the whole story. Not all of my aunts were overweight (didn't know about tofi back then) but still managed to lose eyesight and toes.
I really hope that there are significant advances in discovering the causes of t2d. We know what makes it worse, but not why some of us have it but others eating an equally dreadful diet don't.
I do not want my children having to face this.
Click to expand...
Would knowing that diabetes has a defined risk from being pased on via genetics that you can do nothing to prevent act as a contraceptive? Would you choose not to have kids knowing that you may be passing on a bad gene that may (possibly) end up with them being diabetic? Would you go so far as to terminate a pregnancy because of this risk?

I ask these as rhetorical questions, and do not expect a reply, but these are things that we in society need to consider if a link is proven. It is the same dilemma facing some parents who can pass on a physical disability due to an already identified gene.

Apart from that, what are you otherwise expecting genetics to do? What will that knowledge actually change in your life as a result of knowing? At least with diet I can achieve a better outcome - now, today - and I can help provide information to others to help them too. I am not a gene scientist, so waiting for them to discover the gene is not something i eagerly wait for since any advances in treatment and prevention will be a long way further down the line. It is something that needs to be done, but is of academic interest only to me.
 
Oldvatr said:
Would knowing that diabetes has a defined risk from being pased on via genetics that you can do nothing to prevent act as a contraceptive? Would you choose not to have kids knowing that you may be passing on a bad gene that may (possibly) end up with them being diabetic? Would you go so far as to terminate a pregnancy because of this risk?

I ask these as rhetorical questions, and do not expect a reply, but these are things that we in society need to consider if a link is proven. It is the same dilemma facing some parents who can pass on a physical disability due to an already identified gene.

Apart from that, what are you otherwise expecting genetics to do? What will that knowledge actually change in your life as a result of knowing? At least with diet I can achieve a better outcome - now, today - and I can help provide information to others to help them too. I am not a gene scientist, so waiting for them to discover the gene is not something i eagerly wait for since any advances in treatment and prevention will be a long way further down the line. It is something that needs to be done, but is of academic interest only to me.
Click to expand...
my question was not to hint at a gateway to eugenics. I was asking because people seem to think you 'catch' diabetes from eating too much. I thought that diet was only one component, the component we can control, given the right knowledge. But that if you dont have the genetic predisposition too, you wont become a diabetic regardless of your diet.
 
"
Gene therapy treatment for diabetes often focuses on Type 1 diabetes, but there now has been some reported success in using this therapy to treat Type 2 diabetes.

With gene therapy, doctors insert lab-designed genes into patients to help treat medical conditions. A research article appearing in the Journal of Clinical Investigation describes researchers using this technique to improve insulin sensitivity in laboratory mice with diabetes.

In the experiment, the mice had been given a high-fat diet to induce the type of insulin resistance that is characteristic of Type 2 diabetes. They then were given an IV infusion of a virus carrying the amino acid peptide urocortin 2. With a single treatment, the mice showed increased levels of the urocortin hormone, indicating improved insulin sensitivity; this result lasted for seven weeks. In addition, when the treatment was given to non-diabetic mice, the researchers discovered that those mice maintained fasting glucose levels that were lower than before the treatment."

From Here
http://www.type2nation.com/treatmen...iabetes-improves-insulin-sensitivity-in-mice/
 
serenity648 said:
my question was not to hint at a gateway to eugenics. I was asking because people seem to think you 'catch' diabetes from eating too much. I thought that diet was only one component, the component we can control, given the right knowledge. But that if you dont have the genetic predisposition too, you wont become a diabetic regardless of your diet.
Click to expand...
I am not sure about your final line here. I have seen many in this forum who have no reason to believe their disese is connected with a rogue gene, snd there are people here stating that they became DX'ed following steroid treatment, or as a result of pregnancy, or having PCOS, or a diagnosis of fatty liver. There are other triggers out there that can start the ball rolling, and it is more than just genetics. It is also not obesity either. It is not high fat. it is not low fat. It does ot appear to be protein either. But carbs do seem to be significant regardless of your forebears

I personally think it is our gut enzymes that determines it.. This is where our biomes differ significantly and may explain why I can't tolerate some foods that you can. There was some recent research that showed T2D was improved simply by taking poop from one non diabetic and replacing it into the gut of a diabetic. No, I did not keep the link, so don't ask.

I think if you were to set up a poll in this forum asking if people think they got diabetes from heredity, then it may not support your statement.
 
CherryAA said:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113605

"In observational studies, the most consistent nonessential fatty acid that predicts metabolic syndrome [8], [9] and type-2 diabetes [10]–[14] is palmitoleic acid measured in erythrocytes, plasma cholesteryl ester (CE), or plasma phospholipid (PL). Palmitic and total SFA are usually significant predictors as well. In non-diabetic men that were followed for 5 yr, higher proportions of erythrocyte palmitoleic acid were significantly associated with worsening of hyperglycemia [15]. Higher proportions of palmitic acid and total SFA in blood lipids are associated with increased risk for heart disease [16]–[20] and more recently cancer [21]. Thus, a large body of evidence indicates that higher proportions of blood SFA and palmitoleic acid are associated with the pathophysiology of glucose intolerance and cardiovascular disease."

Six step wise increase in carbs from 47g to 346g per day C1=> C6

From C1 to C6, carbohydrate increased from 47 to 346 g/day corresponding to 7% and 55% of total energy, respectively.


CONCLUSION

In summary, high intakes of saturated fat (including regular consumption of whole eggs, full-fat dairy, high-fat beef and other meats) does not contribute to accumulation of plasma SFA in the context of a low carbohydrate intake. A progressive decrease in saturated fat and commensurate increase in carbohydrate intake, on the other hand, is associated with incremental increases in the proportion of plasma palmitoleic acid, which may be signaling impaired metabolism of carbohydrate, even under conditions of negative energy balance and significant weight loss. These findings contradict the perspective that dietary saturated fat per se is harmful, and underscore the importance of considering the level of dietary carbohydrate that accompanies saturated fat consumption.
Click to expand...
So maybe that is why some non diabetics CAN eat carbs without causing diabetes and most type2s need to keep their carbs low.
So carbs broken down into processed ones and unprocessable ones, per individual is even more important!
I guess that's why I can eat reheated fresh potato without a spike and some people carnt.
So not a fact of reducing carbs but certain carbs!
 
Back
Top