I cured my diabetes so anybody can

[britishpub]

My DSN told me today that I was "cured".

I said, "shall I pop over to the Co-Op and buy a Sausage Roll and Danish pastry and test that hypothesis ?"

We settled on "In Remission" in the end, and she laughed when I asked if I could go back onto Metformin.

 

[EdMac]

I have an altered response to gucose. That is a fact.

So you don't belong in the set of people covered by the scope of my comments. Your body function has not returned to normal you are still exhibiting diabetic responses.

If however your body did not exhibit diabetic responses under any circumstances how are you physiologically different from someone who has never been diabetic?

Diabetes is not something that can be detected as a presence in your body. It is a description of a state of functioning of your body. For some people that is a permanent state of functioning because of physiological differences. For others it is impaired functioning brought about by, for example, fatty deposits on organs. And if that functioning is no longer impaired the description no longer fits.

re·mis·sion
(rē-mish'ŭn),
1. Abatement or lessening in severity of the symptoms of a disease.
2. The period during which such abatement occurs.

1. Irrelevant because we're talking about complete cessation of diabetic responses.
2. Unsuitable because 'the period during' presupposes a finite not indefinite timeframe. The whole point is applicability to the set of people for whom diabetic responses do not recur. (being mindful of the need to manage diet in just the same way non diabetics who wish to avoid diabetes have to).

 

[serenity648]

I was under the impression that, in order to become diabetics, one had to have the diabetes gene. That is why some people become diabetic and others, in the same circumstances, do not. Therefore my reasoning is that I, and all other diabetics, cannot alter our genes, so the potential is always there.

Is this incorrect?

 

[EdMac]

Is this incorrect?

Even if it were true it is possible to carry a gene and exhibit non of the diabetic responses required for you to be labelled a diabetic. Many genes predispose people to conditions but only if certain environmental criteria are met.

 

[Larissima]

Clearly here we're talking about people who recover completely normal responses to any of their dietary choices not those who only maintain normal ranges in response to low carb.

I haven't heard of anyone in this situation. An occasional slice of cake, yes. Two slices of seeded bread per day. Roast potatoes for dinner almost daily. I've seen people on here talk about making these choices and still having non-diabetic BG. But having 50% starchy carbs day in day out (as per the healthy plate / food pyramid)? Cereal and toast for breakfast, sandwich and crisps for lunch and meat and potatoes for dinner, snacking on fruit and occasional sweets? For many people this is a normal diet. But for someone who has "reversed" T2D? Would it really stay reversed?

If you or someone you know has achieved this, please share.

 

[EdMac]

But having 50% starchy carbs day in day out

This misses the point. No one is saying that if you reverse your diabetes you are therefore immune to reintroducing poor function through poor diet. Clearly if it has happened once it can happen again.

But if a non diabetic changes their diet from healthy to carb loaded and makes those choices 'day in day out' many will also find themselves exhibiting diabetic responses. And so from this perspective the reversed diabetic and the non diabetic are in exactly the same boat with no physiological differences and the same potential to become diabetic.

 

[Mep]

This misses the point. No one is saying that if you reverse your diabetes you are therefore immune to reintroducing poor function through poor diet. Clearly if it has happened once it can happen again.

But if a non diabetic changes their diet from healthy to carb loaded and makes those choices 'day in day out' many will also find themselves exhibiting diabetic responses. And so from this perspective the reversed diabetic and the non diabetic are in exactly the same boat with no physiological differences and the same potential to become diabetic.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. I know plenty of people who are overweight and eat lots of carbs and they have been doing so for years and years and their sugar is perfectly fine, so is their blood pressure and heart rate. I think it does depend very much on whether or not you're genetically predisposed to diabetes in the first place. I'm not convinced people can eat their way to getting diabetes without having the gene for it. I'm thinking of a friend right now who going by what you've said should be diabetic by now, but she's not. I can equally think of lots of thin people I know who eat anything they want and often they're not eating very healthy either, yet they do not have diabetes. Likewise I can think of thin people who do get type 2 diabetes and have always eaten healthily.... my great aunt is a perfect example of that and has been thin, healthy, and active all her life. I don't ever recall her having any weight on her or eating unhealthy, yet she was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and she's now in her 80's and has been on insulin for many years. I think we have to be careful not to stereotype what a type 2 should look like or be.

 

[serenity648]

But if a non diabetic changes their diet from healthy to carb loaded and makes those choices 'day in day out' many will also find themselves exhibiting diabetic responses. And so from this perspective the reversed diabetic and the non diabetic are in exactly the same boat with no physiological differences and the same potential to become diabetic.

do they? can you let me know where you found that information please, its quite an important thing for me to understand. I seem to be surrounded by people who eat the same way i did, but their blood sugar levels are fine.

 

[Robinredbreast]

This misses the point. No one is saying that if you reverse your diabetes you are therefore immune to reintroducing poor function through poor diet. Clearly if it has happened once it can happen again.

But if a non diabetic changes their diet from healthy to carb loaded and makes those choices 'day in day out' many will also find themselves exhibiting diabetic responses. And so from this perspective the reversed diabetic and the non diabetic are in exactly the same boat with no physiological differences and the same potential to become diabetic.

My father has eaten carbs all his life, 3 meals a day and he will be 93 this year. Example, porridge, with salt, not sugar, or egg and soldiers. Sandwiches for lunch, a home cooked meal of, pork chop, potatoes, veg, fish and chip supper on a Friday, poached haddock in milk, or mince and tatties, home made lentil or barley soup, curry and rice, all have carbs. Sunday roast with all the trimmings and Sunday tea comprised of, sandwiches, jelly and fruit, or Dundee cake. We had a bowl of fruit we could pick from and a wimpy as a treat, now and again.
So, what really what would be classed as ' a healthy eating diet ' by a non diabetic ?

 

[Robinredbreast]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cure

A good article, especially the last paragraph.

 

[EdMac]

I seem to be surrounded by people who eat the same way I did...

My father has eaten carbs all his life...

I know plenty of people who are overweight and...

I get it, we've all got anecdotal evidence that some can eat **** food and not become diabetic and some can eat healthily and yet become diabetic.

This is largely irrelevant to the wider point.

There is a population of people (Set A) who have the potential to become diabetic because of diet - but they don't because they are sensible in their eating habits.

There is a population of people (Set B) who have the potential to become diabetic because of diet - and they do because they are less sensible in their eating habits. (lets not get into a debate about what sense has to do with it)

Set B can be further divided into sub groups, two of which are:

Set B1: those who remain diabetic for life. Perhaps they reduce diabetic response, perhaps not. In any event how do we know they are diabetic - because they exhibit physiological responses that can be directly measured.

Set B2: those who fully recover and exhibit no diabetic responses.

In terms of measurement Set A and Set B2 are indistinguishable from one another. I see no reason to apply different labels.

Small Print (to be read at triple speed without pause): Sets A & B do not represent individuals on the forum any likeness to individuals on the forum is purely coincidental. Sets A & B do not represent a full population of diabetics or non diabetics, they are formed to demonstrate how the boundary conditions for applications of the term Remission in conjunction with the term Diabetic are frequently either ill formed and / or ill applied. Before feeling offended readers are urged to consider that offence is always taken and cannot be given. Have a nice day

 

[Robinredbreast]

I get it, we've all got anecdotal evidence that some can eat **** food and not become diabetic and some can eat healthily and yet become diabetic.

This is largely irrelevant to the wider point.

There is a population of people (Set A) who have the potential to become diabetic because of diet - but they don't because they are sensible in their eating habits.

There is a population of people (Set B) who have the potential to become diabetic because of diet - and they do because they are less sensible in their eating habits. (lets not get into a debate about what sense has to do with it)

Set B can be further divided into sub groups, two of which are:

Set B1: those who remain diabetic for life. Perhaps they reduce diabetic response, perhaps not. In any event how do we know they are diabetic - because they exhibit physiological responses that can be directly measured.

Set B2: those who fully recover and exhibit no diabetic responses.

In terms of measurement Set A and Set B2 are indistinguishable from one another. I see no reason to apply different labels.

Small Print (to be read at triple speed without pause): Sets A & B do not represent individuals on the forum any likeness to individuals on the forum is purely coincidental. Sets A & B do not represent a full population of diabetics or non diabetics, they are formed to demonstrate how the boundary conditions for applications of the term Remission in conjunction with the term Diabetic are frequently either ill formed and / or ill applied. Before feeling offended readers are urged to consider that offence is always taken and cannot be given. Have a nice day

There is a population of people (Set A) who have the potential to become diabetic because of diet - but they don't because they are sensible in their eating habits.
So what about the vegetarians and vegans ( on a healthy sensible diet I assume) ............... become type 2.

Myself or my parents, didn't eat '****' food.

 

[EdMac]

Did you read the small print?

 

[EdMac]

So what about the vegetarians and vegans ( on a healthy sensible diet I assume) ............... become type 2.

We can refer to them as Set C if you like?

 

[Robinredbreast]

Did you read the small print?

I'm definitely not offended.

 

[EdMac]

I'm definitely not offended.

Well that could add a level of detail because the people in Set C are perhaps those most likely, having exercised a sensible diet for a lifetime, to be offended - along with the more deluded members of Set B (Set Bd).

So Set C can be subdivided into Set Co - people exhibiting a diabetic response despite maintaining a healthy diet who are offended by their own interpretation (taken not given ) of a comment to be implying that they are diabetic because of eating habits and Set Cno - people exhibiting a diabetic response despite maintaining a healthy diet who do not interpret a comment to be implying they are diabetic because of their own eating habits and are not offended.

Fortunately set membership rules for Bd, C, Co and Cno have little bearing on the membership rules for sets A & B (inclusive of B1 & B2).

Phewww, things nearly got complicated there.

 

[JohnEGreen]

But if a non diabetic changes their diet from healthy to carb loaded and makes those choices 'day in day out' many will also find themselves exhibiting diabetic responses

And many won't they are not diabetic and probably never will be the rest of us more than likely always had a predisposition toward diabetes for what ever reason and the outcome was inevitable with a high carb diet.

 

[EdMac]

And many won't

Again this is irrelevant to the main point. If someone no longer exhibits diabetic responses they are indistinguishable from non diabetics irrespective of their genetic makeup.

 

[serenity648]

I am not questioning because i am, or may be offended. I have no idea where the offense would come into it. I am simply looking for accurate information and links to studies clarifying this important point - is diabetes only a matter of how we eat, or is it genetic, and why do some people, who eat the same as each other, become diabetic, and not others.

 

[Osidge]

Well that could add a level of detail because the people in Set C are perhaps those most likely, having exercised a sensible diet for a lifetime, to be offended - along with the more deluded members of Set B (Set Bd).

So Set C can be subdivided into Set Co - people exhibiting a diabetic response despite maintaining a healthy diet who are offended by their own interpretation (taken not given ) of a comment to be implying that they are diabetic because of eating habits and Set Cno - people exhibiting a diabetic response despite maintaining a healthy diet who do not interpret a comment to be implying they are diabetic because of their own eating habits and are not offended.

Fortunately set membership rules for Bd, C, Co and Cno have little bearing on the membership rules for sets A & B (inclusive of B1 & B2).

Phewww, things nearly got complicated there.

The aim of the form is to support and make clear not to offend and confuse.