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

Can the rise of T2 Diabetes be termed an Epidemic.

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
 
Last edited:
Hotpepper20000 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
HSSS said:
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.
Click to expand...
You have explained it all so much better then I ever could.:)
 
HSSS said:
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
Click to expand...
No. You are correct. Your post reflects my thinking on the OP’s post.
 
Winnie53 said:
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.
Click to expand...

A fascinating video and slides, @Winnie53

Most eye opening.

Thank you for posting.
 
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 I also and I am in danger here of derailing my own thread was struck by how it may be applied to other things like the rise in recent knife crimes and other social ills.

Edit to add if you think of it as communicable and an epidemic what epidemial measures can be taken to contain it.
 
Last edited:
JohnEGreen said:
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
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a name for it though and I can be jiggered as to what it is. My immediate knee jerk description was a social disease but that can’t be right. :D. But it is in many cases a disease that is driven by social evolution. HSSS gave the best description...

Edit : Upon reflection it is a social disease, just not the type we normally think of as a social disease. So in that sense it is reaching epidemic levels, so it would seem.
 
Last edited:
Tipetoo said:
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
Click to expand...
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 agree the way it’s used in journalism is often lazy and for emphasis. The article though gives an argument that it might also (accidentally?) be true. You might not agree with that argument,
 
I realise that this is the whole point of the discussion, but in the end, the lexicon of the terminology is of minor importance. What is of major importance is that metabolic syndrome is sweeping the globe. It’s estimated that more US citizens have diabetes than not. We can argue the semantics all we like, but one way or the other this has to stop if humanity doesn’t want to destroy itself. Perhaps it’s our fate...
 
@Jim Lahey .. 160 million Americans? Where did that figure come from? Unless I'm missing something, that's way off
 
Mike D said:
@Jim Lahey .. 160 million Americans? Where did that figure come from? Unless I'm missing something, that's way off
Click to expand...

Diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes, pre-diabetes and hyperinsulinemia (diabetes in situ). I don’t have a direct source and cannot speak for the veracity of the information. It’s just something I read and have heard a lot about in various podcasts. Wouldn’t surprise me if it was reasonably accurate.
 
I did read an article a couple of years ago (when I still bothered to read articles about this) that based on "research" it was estimated that a majority of Americans had hyperinsulinemia.

I can't remember where I read it, but I think it was an ADA paper
 
Back
Top