That sounds like you're type 2. Nowhere in that brief history of you diabetes is it suggested your initial diagnosis with type 2 at age 32 was ever questioned. Was there ever a suggestion that the initial diagnosis with type 2 was wrong? Being put on insulin doesn't make you type 1, it makes you a type 2 diabetic treated with insulin. Now you are treated with diet, something that is not an option for someone with type 1.
I took 5 units and my levels dropped to 4.0 immediately. I read on this forum that I could be type 2 using insulin...gonna do some more research. I live in a third world country...my doctors never explained this to me.thanx and God blessThe low/no carb thing gets a lot of hype esp on the Type 2 forum, but don't forget no matter what you eat it gets turned into glucose before it can be used as energy. Like the moderator said before there was insulin people tried starvation, and eating cabbage only and still ended up dead from DKA. So no matter what you eat you have to take insulin injections. Type 2's are different, they make plenty of insulin.
If you can eat a meal, without injecting insulin, and bring your blood sugars down by going for a walk, I would say that you are a Type 2. Albeit one that is not producing that much insulin of their own and requires 'extra' from an external source. I would usually post some links to read, but I won't. I think it is far more important that you seek the assistance of a Health Care Professional, and ask the question. Whatever answer you get, ask them to point to the evidence from which they draw their conclusion.I took 5 units and my levels dropped to 4.0 immediately. I read on this forum that I could be type 2 using insulin...gonna do some more research. I live in a third world country...my doctors never explained this to me.thanx and God bless
Sorry Big Newt, that's not strictly true. When you are keto-adapted you are burning fat in place of carbs and are not converting it to glucose. Instead you convert the fat via ketones to Acetyle-COA, which is then converted to ATP by the Krebs cycle to provide your energy. Only a small amount of glucose is synthesised in order to maintain the brain, which can also run mostly on Ketones, but requires about 30g per day of glucose, that can be obtained from various metabolic pathways.The low/no carb thing gets a lot of hype esp on the Type 2 forum, but don't forget no matter what you eat it gets turned into glucose before it can be used as energy.
I know that, I was talking about when the body has enough insulin, not a DKA situation which in the end is not sustainable.Sorry Big Newt, that's not strictly true. When you are keto-adapted you are burning fat in place of carbs and are not converting it to glucose. Instead you convert the fat via ketones to Acetyle-COA, which is then converted to ATP by the Krebs cycle to provide your energy. Only a small amount of glucose is synthesised in order to maintain the brain, which can also run mostly on Ketones, but requires about 30g per day of glucose, that can be obtained from various metabolic pathways.
Just as a thought experiment here - what function do you know of insulin performing other than to facilitate the uptake of glucose by cells in the body? (I'm not being facetious here, I genuinely don't know the answer to this and you may have an answer)
Let's just suppose that somebody follows a zero carb diet and exercises regularly. We know that GLUT4 receptors (the transporters in cells enabling the uptake of glucose) within muscles translocate and proliferate in number in response to muscle contraction (exercise) just as they respond to insulin (in the absence of exercise). Consequently, the body is able to overcome the need for insulin in this regard. The body can take up glucose into cells (certainly into muscle cells) in the absence of insulin.
We also know that the body can fuel itself effectively on fats (ketones) alone and isn't dependant on carbs in the diet. Even a potential blood glucose rise from proteins and some carbs can be exercised away.
In the absence of insulin I could foresee a potential issue of blood glucose rise through intensive exercise or any bodily stress response, where without insulin suppressing the glucagon release from the pancreas there may be an unchecked glucose rise. If muscles are regularly depleted of their glycogen stores through exercise however, then surely the blood glucose level would gradually fall?
Of course I am not advocating that anyone with type 1 diabetes stops taking insulin but sometimes it's good to challenge the things that we think we know.
As I understand it, the breaking down of body fat to fuel the body causes ketones and high blood sugar, which becomes a vicious cycle, which also causes dehydration and exhaustion and, eventually: DKA. The body can use ketones (and the brain likes them), but to quote our eminent endo consultant: "Ketones plus continued high blood sugar = DKA." And it's not pretty to watch your child hooked up to drips and monitors in intensive care for 72 hours. The idea that someone with T1 could exercise takes me aback, remembering how my son was exhausted for weeks, during which time he hardly got out of bed, and he was then barely able to walk or even stay awake from total exhaustion on the actual day of his diagnosis. For me, that throws out a substantive part of the "thought experiment" argument. Also exercise does not always cause blood sugar to fall - it can have the opposite effect.
So I think you're right that insulin only facilitates the uptake of glucose in body cells. Don't forget though that this is part of a chain reaction which in turn means that glucose doesn't fly wholesale into the bloodstream. When glucose does all diffuse into the blood, it causes cell hunger and the breakdown of more and more body fats to fuel these starving cells; to no avail, as this just produces - more sugar that can't be utilised. However, that's a pretty essential function for someone who has no insulin of their own, particularly when you consider that the body is a system and one action causes another reaction.
As I understand it, before exogenous insulin existed, people "treated" T1 with starvation - the only treatment at that time. I also believe that the end result was invariably the same: death.
Unless someone has a completely unique physiology (which might in fact question a diagnosis of T1), my challenge would be that today, in 2017, all people who have a firm T1D diagnosis, and who produce no insulin of their own, need exogenous insulin to survive.
In my view, when we challenge what we think we know, we are possibly challenging opinion. Also in my view, to challenge that insulin is not necessarily needed to treat T1D, in people who produce none of their own (or not enough), is challenging what I consider to be a proven fact. I hope that's not seen as offensive, but I feel quite strongly that this point needs to be made, having seen the effects of no insulin first hand and being told that my child might actually die, at diagnosis point. I would regret not posting this if one person decided to try some risky "alternative" (for themselves or their child) and ended up making themselves ill or worse.
While we all wish for miracles in relation to this condition (I so desperately do), we also need to face into the realities of where medical science and treatment are today.
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?