I’m not a scientist so can’t speak to the accuracy of these articles but it is an interesting topicNot doubting you @Hotpepper20000 . How do you explain that?
Thank you.@Hotpepper20000, you might find this interesting... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4991654/
I agree. My personal view at this point in time (subject to change of course) is that we each have an individual level of inherent risk (genetics), we then live our lives exposed to various outside influences (increasing or decreasing risk) and make our personal choices on exercise and diet (further increasing or decreasing risk). Then we each have a different level at which we are overwhelmed by the factors and begin to succumb to the early and maybe later stages of type 2 diabetes at varying speeds of decline.Thank you.
But I am convinced that there are other factors beside what we eat that contribute to diabetes.
Sorry I am detailing the thread. I’ll step aside.
You have explained it all so much better then I ever could.I agree. My personal view at this point in time (subject to change of course) is that we each have an individual level of inherent risk (genetics), we then live our lives exposed to various outside influences (increasing or decreasing risk) and make our personal choices on exercise and diet (further increasing or decreasing risk). Then we each have a different level at which we are overwhelmed by the factors and begin to succumb to the early and maybe later stages of type 2 diabetes at varying speeds of decline.
Interesting point though, that you made, @Hotpepper20000You have explained it all so much better then I ever could.
No. You are correct. Your post reflects my thinking on the OP’s post.I think the point in @JohnEGreen referenced article is the reason the word epidemic can be used is because there are life and societal factors that cause the disease which most are exposed to and thus give the disease the ability to spread through society in that way. Ie it is communicable by that shared societal behaviour, belief and opportunity rather than infectious bacteria or virus etc as we tend to think of communicable diseases. And if something can be communicated then it can become an epidemic.
For sure society is a factor (along with genetics and individual life styles and choices and options) in terms of the diet available, the diet advocated as healthy, the norms and aspirations experienced and encouraged, the way exercise is viewed and experienced and the accurate education of risk and prevention. Focusing all efforts on personal responsibility to “be healthy” and blaming a person when the then “fail” by getting diabetes is never going to be the cure either. Understanding the true causes and addressing the lifestyle factors on a societal level is certainly required too. Does that make it communicable? I’d have said no outright before reading the article based on a contagion conception of what communicable means . I’m rethinking on it for now not so sure anymore. Can we “catch” bad lifestyles and diets which increase our odds of becoming type 2 diabetic through no fault of our own? Maybe.
I do however think typically the word Epidemic, when used for conditions like diabetes, is used to emphasise the scale of a problem in a common language rather than a scientific one. We use plenty of words in a similarly scientifically inaccurate way without writing papers on it.
Sorry it’s late and I’m waffling as much as the article did
Thank you.
But I am convinced that there are other factors beside what we eat that contribute to diabetes.
Sorry I am detailing the thread. I’ll step aside.
Lustig believes that obesity causes diabetes in only 10 to 15 percent of cases, that more typically obesity is just another marker of diabetes. That certainly was my experience. I weighed 105 pounds when my problems began in my early to mid 20's with hypoglycemia and gestational diabetes. During the three decades that followed, my weight ballooned to 185 pounds eating normally: three meals a day following the current nutritional guidelines. With the exception of using the South Beach diet briefly to lose 20 pounds, I didn't "diet" until 2015 when I began eating the low carb ketogenic diet and dropped down to 138 pounds. Lustig believes diabetes is an "exposure" problem that is due to high fructose corn syrup and sugar contained in most processed foods and beverages.
Interesting point though, that you made, @Hotpepper20000
I wonder if living on the side of a Swiss mountain might help?
Quite.Not if you fall off it!!
I am the same regarding the meaning / use of epidemic, an epidemic of flu / measles etc is the way it should be used, an epidemic of diabetes is just outright lazy journalism from whatever news source it is.I'm not sure if I did the right thing in posting this thread as it did seem be becoming some what contentious, but I did think it was a subject worthy of discussion as the concept of something though not being actually infectious could be communicable through vectors not pathogenic but societal was a bit novel to me
Did you read the actual article linked in the first post? I think most people would agree with you without consideration of the points it contains. (I would have before reading it, still uncertain if I do or not, but it certainly has a point worth considering)I am the same regarding the meaning / use of epidemic, an epidemic of flu / measles etc is the way it should be used, an epidemic of diabetes is just outright lazy journalism from whatever news source it is.
Wait till a pandemic of diabetes happen...
Edit: typo
@Jim Lahey .. 160 million Americans? Where did that figure come from? Unless I'm missing something, that's way off
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?