Could T2 be a famine survival mutation?

[hanadr]

We know that Malaria is survived better by people ith sicle cell disease, although in the absence of malaria sickle cell causes a lot of suffering. I wonder if T2 was a statistical mutation at some time and gave people with the condition the ability to survive famine.
Certainly historical and pre- historical famines would then have selected FOR T2. Now much of the world has access to too much food, T2 has become a serious problem. It would be interesting to know what effects T2 has in countries which don't have enough food a the moment.
Hana

 

[))Denise((]

I read an article that the Irish may be affected by this due to the potato famine. I'm half Irish ....

 

[phoenix]

I think that many scientists have given up on the thrifty gene hypothesis. Neel, who was the original proponent of the paper did a lot of subsequent research with various groups such as the Pima and then wrote a paper in 1998 in which he refined the hypothesis, in that paper he seems to suggest environment was more determinanthttp://deepblue.lib.umich.ed ... sequence=1

There are lots of articles but this newspaper article summarises some of the arguments against it.

Aberdeen's Prof. Speakman feels it's easy to understand why the hypothesis has been so highly regarded. "Because it's a great idea: 'In times of famine, it's the lean ones who are gonna die.' It's a simple idea; it all makes sense."

Except that it's wrong, he adds. There is no proof that fatter people survive famines better than thinner ones. In fact, says Prof. Speakman, a specialist in how animals use energy, throughout evolution, "most populations would never see a famine. There's one every 100 years or so, but in those times, people only lived 25 or 30 years."

Anthropologists have long argued the theory wrongly assumes that all hunter-gatherers suffered regular famines, when crop failures made starvation more common among early farmers, suggesting Europeans should face a greater risk of being obese and diabetic. Farming arose about 12,000 years ago - which, in evolution, is like the day before yesterday - and not enough time, says Prof. Speakman, for alleged thrifty genes to have spread as widely as they seemed to have

.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/natio ... ice=mobile

Speakman and researchers at Aberdeen University promote the 'drifty gene' hypothesis

modern small animals ancestral humans (Australopithecines) probably had a body weight regulation system that prevented the animals becoming too thin to avoid starvation risk, but also prevented them becoming too fat to avoid predation risk. The environment occupied by early hominids changed dramtically about 2 million years ago with the emergence of Homo erectus. Homo erectus was social, invented fire and weaponry. These three factors removed the predation risk, allowing the genes regulating the upper limits of our body weight to randomly drift – the ‘Drifty gene’ hypothesis.

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/energetics-resear ... h/obesity/

There is one theory that high glucose levels conferred protection against blood freezing during the ice age. It's suggested that's why there is a greater incidence of T1 in Northern climes. (sorry not strictly on topic because T1 but I find it interesting)
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877(05)00054-X/abstract

 

[paul-1976]

>snip< "There is one theory that high glucose levels conferred protection against blood freezing during the ice age. It's suggested that's why there is a greater incidence of T1 in Northern climes. (sorry not strictly on topic because T1 but I find it interesting)"

Interesting but wouldn't that be counter productive in colder climates? as we know,elevated BG's can actually cause weight loss which in colder climates isn't a great survival mechanism...just a thought

 

[phoenix]

>snip< "There is one theory that high glucose levels conferred protection against blood freezing during the ice age. It's suggested that's why there is a greater incidence of T1 in Northern climes. (sorry not strictly on topic because T1 but I find it interesting)"

Interesting but wouldn't that be counter productive in colder climates? as we know,elevated BG's can actually cause weight loss which in colder climates isn't a great survival mechanism...just a thought

Agreed, others point out that DKA doesn't confer a survival advantage.
However, I could see that people who had a more gradual onset T1 ie LADA could have higher levels for a while and be able to procreate before dying. Childhood onset T1 wouldn't be of any value.
Unfortunately the cryogenics/T1 paper is behind a pay wall. There is this article about it from the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/healt ... d=all&_r=0

It's several years since the article was published and the author doesn't seem to have written any more papers on the idea though he has produced some other fairly wacky papers on other subjects.
He has written a pop science book 'The survival of the Sickest .

 

[lrw60]

This is interesting. I was overweight all my life, I also enjoyed the winter. I felt better in the cold, nomatter how cold it got. (British cold that is). I could also go all day without food, I only had tea and biscuits in the morning, then an evening meal. This almost describes a nomadic, prehistoric caveman! I am not trying to belittle your posting here Hana, I feel that my body worked very well when others would be feeling the cold or lack of food, or both. I also joked with friends once that if there was a nuclear war and I survived the blast, I would then live of my fat reserves far longer than they could. Not sure where all this fits in with becoming type 2 though. But, I only became type 2 a few years after I gave up working hard for a living. Perhaps my body couldn't use the carbohydrate intake. As I said, this is interesting.
Lee.