New Biomarkers Identified for Type 2

[Cowboyjim]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121004134833.htm
To this end, the researchers studied a total of 4,000 blood samples. At the time the blood sample was taken, none of the study participants suffered from type 2 diabetes: However, during the average follow-up time of seven years, 800 Potsdam study participants and 91 Augsburg participants were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The 76 participants in the Tuebingen study were already classified at the beginning of the study as individuals at high risk for type 2 diabetes. At the time the blood sample was taken, however, they were still healthy.

"metabolites can also be used as biomarkers to precisely determine the risk of diabetes at a very early stage"

Not sure quite what all this means for us but fascinating if scary. That is a high fraction imho getting on for one in four... that is interesting enough in itself. The items gives few details of the sample population though. It would be a good method to do screening I suppose... better to know you might get it so you could at least think about rethinking your lifestyle etc. 8)

see also:
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20121004/Selective-screening-misses-gestational-diabetes.aspx
"selective screening is missing low risk women who are having adverse outcomes and thus underestimates the prevalence of adverse outcomes in this group," said lead author Gerard Healy, from University College Hospital in Galway, Ireland.

Recently, the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) recommended universal screening of all pregnancies. However, in the UK and other countries selective screening is still recommended.

 

[librarising]

Cowboyjim wrote

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 134833.htm

"metabolites can also be used as biomarkers to precisely determine the risk of diabetes at a very early stage"

That is very interesting. I see a similar study was done here :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126616/

Our findings, which highlight five branched chain and aromatic amino acids from 61 metabolites profiled, are particularly noteworthy in the context of experimental and clinical data suggesting that certain amino acids may be both markers and effectors of insulin resistance

In addition to insulin resistance, impaired insulin secretion plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes. In this regard, it is noteworthy that multiple amino acids, particularly the branched chain amino acids, are modulators of insulin secretion24-26. Thus, another possible mechanism by which hyperaminoacidemia could promote diabetes is via hyperinsulinemia leading to pancreatic α-cell exhaustion.

It's basically saying our blood can be used to tell us what's going on, and what is going to happen due to the presence/absence of certain metabolites, some of them amino acids. Insulin resistance and insulin secretion are both relevant it would seem.

Hopefully they're finding out which are the markers (i.e. finding them all) and then finding a way to deal with it.
Keep riding shotgun, and we'll head off that diabetes at the pass

Geoff

 

[hanadr]

Having merely skimmed all this data. Thanks for posting it!!!
I think it supports the theory that T2 is a genetic metabolic error of which weight gain is a symptom not a cause and patients are NOT responsible for causing their own condition. It also suggests that keeping your weight down may well not protect you even if you can do so. I tried all my adult life to keep my weight down and eventually failed. I was never morbidly obese. In fact I only just got in to the "obese" category of BMI.
My mother has T2, my grandmother had it and my brother, who doesn't, has abnormal sugar metabolism. I know plenty of people who are fatter thamn me, but don't have T2
In ddition, the variability of T2 incidence among different ethnic groups would suggest a genetic condition.
Hana

 

[xyzzy]

Having merely skimmed all this data. Thanks for posting it!!!
I think it supports the theory that T2 is a genetic metabolic error of which weight gain is a symptom not a cause and patients are NOT responsible for causing their own condition.

That's how I interpreted it too Hana. Thanks for a very interesting read Cowboyjim.

Another nail in the coffin of the "Food in your mouth fat and lazy brigade"

 

[Cowboyjim]

this just in... kind of indicates a negatory on any notional national screening... oh well.

http://www.medilexicon.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=251194
Diabetes Screening Study Finds No Reduction In Mortality Rates

Screening for type 2 diabetes does not appear to affect overall population mortality rates, according to a new study published in The Lancet. The randomised trial, which is the first ever study evaluating the effect of type 2 diabetes screening programmes on overall mortality rates in a population, assessed the number of deaths over ten years in a group of more than 20 000 patients across 32 general practices in Eastern England.

They found that overall mortality was not reduced in the groups where screening took place. They also found no significant difference between the screened and non-screened groups in the number of deaths specifically attributable to diabetes, cardiovascular illness, cancer, or other causes of death.

tis a tricky thang this DM.... 8)

 

[librarising]

Cowboyjim wrote
They also found no significant difference between the screened and non-screened groups in the number of deaths specifically attributable to diabetes, cardiovascular illness, cancer, or other causes of death.

Perhaps that's because they don't know what works, even when they know what you're suffering from.
Carbs for health, statins for cholesterol, acceptance of too-high HbA1c levels.
I wouldn't trust the NHS with my car, let alone my health.
My GP's face, when she told me I had diabetes, tells me everything. You'd have thought she was handing me a death sentence.
I didn't understand her 'face' at the time but, knowing now how they see it as a progressive disease, I do.

Geoff (not low carbing thanks to the NHS, but in spite of it)